Careful, being labeled "special" is very much a double-edged sword. I'd rather be respected than pitied, unless I truly thought I had no shot at being respectable.
Yeah I mean, really, don't we want to do the opposite? Logically, isn't someone with an "aggression gene" probably going to be more likely to be a repeat offender?
Personal responsibility is a pure fiction in a deterministic universe. Everything that will ever happen was decided at the time of the Big Bang. We just don't have the instruments to predict everything yet.
As our instruments get better, we will get better at understanding and predicting human behavior. It is already clear that we are all products of our genetics and our environment.
If we're smart, we'll realize that protecting society from dangerous people is more important than crying about who has what gene,
Personal responsibility is a pure fiction in a deterministic universe.
Except that quantum mechanics implies that we are not in a deterministic universe. Replay the same actions twice and you won't necessarily get the same outcome.
However, there is no more room for "personal responsibility" in a random universe.
A fair die has a 1/6 chance of producing each of its possible outcomes(a fair D6, that is). A loaded die might have a 100% chance of producing a 6 and no chance of any of the others. One of these is random, one is deterministic, neither is free.
Aside from the fact that it is intuitively powerful, it is actually pretty hard to figure out what it would mean for something to have "free will". Imagine a die that can "chose"
Personal responsibility is a pure fiction in a deterministic universe.
Everything that will ever happen was decided at the time of the Big Bang.
We just don't have the instruments to predict everything yet.
There's no counter proof to this assertion. For a simple example, we can create a quantum system that can, when observed, collapse into one of two states. But we can't predict which of those two states that the system will collapse into. Even if a human were completely deterministic, all they have to do is use one of these systems to inject unpredictable randomness into their decision making.
In other words, you don't need to predict the behavior of a human being, you need to predict the behavior of this
Personal responsibility is a pure fiction in a deterministic universe.
Good thing we don't live in one, then.
Everything that will ever happen was decided at the time of the Big Bang. We just don't have the instruments to predict everything yet.
Nope. It is impossible, even at the most basic theoretical level, to predict everything. Basic physics theory shows that it is impossible to even just measure everything to an arbitrary degree of precision regardless of what instrumentation you may have. Go back and read your Heisenberg.
Nope. It is impossible, even at the most basic theoretical level, to predict everything. Basic physics theory shows that it is impossible to even just measure everything to an arbitrary degree of precision regardless of what instrumentation you may have. Go back and read your Heisenberg.
Actually, while complete measurement may be impossible, it does not mean that the actual underlying mechanics are not deterministic. In fact, superdeterminism [wikipedia.org] is considered a viable explanation of Bell's inequality that avoids ruling out a completely deterministic universe by abandoning any notion of free will in performing an experiment.
You can read a longer explanation here [everything2.com].
We're talking about people who commit murder, not Schroedinger's cat.
Even if the universe is not deterministic, my point is just as valid.
Nobody is really "responsible" for anything if you go back far enough.
We're all just bags of salt water.
The fact that subatomic particles can do some weird shit doesn't mean that I can change my genes, or my upbringing, or my parent's genese/upbringing, etc. etc. etc.
Every effect has a cause (in the macro world at least). To extrapolate: every crime has an excuse.
Yes. I hold both these beliefs. The justice system is not about blame, it's about keeping criminals safe from society and (in my mind) rehabilitating them.
You would never blame a computer for a programmer's error, but you would try to fix the bugs, and if there was a dangerous bug you couldn't fix you wouldn't use that computer.
I hold similar beliefs, and to me, the punitive aspects of prison should only be as required to a) be a deterrence, b) serve as a lesson (as in you have to feel punished so you understand what you did is bad) and c) symbolically represent atonement to society. the latter part is really necessary because then the criminal can feel they deserved their punishment and got better from it, but also have the society consider someone who has finished his sentence as a new person.
Unfortunately, too many people feel that legal punishment is a means to avenge the victim. This is cruel, wasteful and essentially inefficient. Demand punishments as light as possible to deter: this will empty prisons, be less costly, and make for a more balanced society.
Doesn't that make the punitive aspects of the prison system (which have not been demonstrated to serve any rehabilitative goal) unconscionable?
Well, he said "keep criminals safe from society". As part of that, keeping criminals safe from revenge should be included. The punitive aspects of prison discourage retribution, especially if the avenger would also be subject to the same punishments as the criminal. I would argue that this aspect is very successful even in relatively violent cultures like those in the US. The criminal "pays his dues" and hence, sates the victims' desire for vengeance.
Yes. I hold both these beliefs. The justice system is not about blame, it's about keeping criminals safe from society and (in my mind) rehabilitating them.
The U.S. justice system is founded on the monastery model of repentance. See: Michael Foucault, "Discipline & Punish". The modern-day U.S. prison system is an industrial model that seeks taxpayer rent in exchange for effectively perpetual incarceration for anything that may be classified in the public's eyes as a crime. (See: Ann Krueger's paper on "rent seeking").
You would be very hard pressed to find anyone conscious of what the system is who would describe the prison system as something that in any way rehabilitates. In the criminal justice industry (lawyers, police, judges, etc.) often it's called "criminal college": where one learns the trade and networks. The prison system stigmatizes and ostracizes - it makes travel, finding a job, getting education all more difficult; it has no benefit for prisoners (in my opinion, and according to the three federal court judges I've asked this very question of). It also has questionable benefit or society - but that's a bigger question.
You would never blame a computer for a programmer's error, but you would try to fix the bugs, and if there was a dangerous bug you couldn't fix you wouldn't use that computer.
I agree. The prison system necessarily presumes culpability - i.e. that the criminal act was conducted of one's own free will. If it were otherwise the prison system would simply be segregation of those whose relationship with society is unacceptable because of factors they are unable to change - their genetics and/or environment, and our prison system would be analogous to apartheid.
Agreed. Anyone who mounts a "my genes made me do it" defence should realize that their genes are, for now, immutable and so they are effectively claiming that they cannot be successfully rehabilitated and must be monitored or otherwise controlled for the rest of their lives.
This essentially reflects my belief. If a person has a genetic disposition to murder and acts on it, they shouldn't be "punished" for this, but may need to be isolated from society. Of course, if we can cure the physical ill (i.e. schizophrenia) then we should cure rather than isolate.
And before someone else points it out, yes I meant "keeping society safe from criminals". First cup of coffee, yadda yadda.
If this really is genetic, wouldn't that be an argument for the death penalty as a method of selecting against that gene? Seems to me that giving such a light sentence is counterproductive here, if in fact it is genetic.
Is personal responsibility compatible with atheism? Before you break out the troll mods, I ask this in seriousness. If we are nothing more than a chemical being, then where does personal responsibility come into play?
How is this train of thought any different for a theist? "If God's creations, enacting his will, then where does personal responsibility come into play?"
But if you go down that 'lack of free will' route, then crime was predestined, this subsequent capture was predestined, the judge was predestined to set that particular sentence too, and everything about the whole world is basically pointless.
So it's best to assume free will exists for practical purposes. Save the metaphysics for those insomniac nights (or take a philosophy degree).
You should read up on Kant's categorical imperative. I am an atheist and it is the closest thing to a written rationale for a universal morality that I can find. Here's a link:
Is personal responsibility compatible with atheism?
Maybe not. That's not just an atheistic question though - it goes right to the basis of free will.
However, we can accept for the sake of argument that we're all just clockwork beings with no more control of our destiny than a computer program. My programming is telling me that if I am going to continue to achieve my primary objectives (shorthanded as "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"), then dangers to those primary objects (including violent criminals) must be neutralized. This guy's genes may be an excuse, and an explanation for his actions. However, that certainly doesn't make him any less dangerous.
The only way I'd want him to get less time on the basis of his "aggressive genes" is if he were to undergo a chemical or genetic treatment that reduces the effects of those genes.
I think personal responsibility is a crutch that people lean on instead of facing up to the fact that our problems and questions have difficult and complicated solutions. It's far easier to put responsibility on individuals than it is to admit that there may be genetic or social infrastructures issues that encourage criminality in some people and discourage it in others. If we can say the criminal is solely at fault for his actions, then we never acknowledge our own responsibility for the problems that the
Nobody controls their behavior any more than animals.
This is inconsistent with my experience of guilt (which, I would add, is very different from my experience of fear of retribution and punishment). To anyone who might get angry at me for asserting this, ask whether your anger at me is consistent with your belief that I had no control over typing it.
To protect us from those persons who cannot recognize the validity of this statement: "No man has a right to harm another. And that is all the government should restrain him." The government's job is to restrain these persons in cages, to protect our inalienable rights.
Prisons serve all three roles. Their existance is ment to be a deterrent to those that have not broken the law, punishment for those that have already broken the law, and protection of the rest of society from those who've demonstrated a willingness to break the law. The nature of the crime will effect to what extent the sentencing is intended to act as a punshment or protective role.
Sentencing of Blue and White colar criminals are going to be aimed at punishment and a warning to others that may be tempted to perpetrate similar acts (embezlement, breaking and entering, etc.). The ancillary effects of incarceration (loss of job, being ostrasized by friends/family, difficulty finding a job post incarceration) are as much part of the punishement as the actuall time spent in prison.
The sentencing of violent offenders is going to be targeted more at punishing the perpetrator and protecting the innocent. That's why they tend to have longer sentences and are locked up in higher security facilities than their blue collar compatriots. Rehabilitation is more important, but less successful with certain groups of violent criminals and thus they serve longer sentences and are occationally euthanized by the state (depending on where they are incarcerated).
The death penalty is the ultimate in both punishment of the criminal and protection of society, and IMO not to be used lightly. It should never be used for those that have not proven themselves to be violently dangerous to the rest of society (ie tax fraud doesn't deserve a needle, but repeated homocides does).
And if prison exists for the purpose of reforming prisoners then his sentence should be longer because it's more effort to reform someone who has a genetic disposition towards violence.
If I'm actually genetically predisposed to violence, keeping me in society might not be the best course of action.
Seems to me, those that are _not_ predisposed to violence have a better chance of rehabilitating than those that aren't. Shouldn't they need less time in the slammer to rehabilitate?
It's the smell of free will going out the window, courtesy of people thinking that gene==unable to overcome that impulse. And with free will out the window, there's no liability. And with no liability... well, the court system we have is completely unworkable.
I was wondering when that issue was going to crop up. Thankfully, Italy seems bound to test just how much of a disaster that road will be.
The only solution to this is to ignore genetic predisposition when judging a convicted criminal.
Or, to put it differently: we have no choice but to believe in free will. Our society depends on it.
Society has been on a tear lately always looking to avoid personal responsibility and blame someone (or in this case, something else). For example,
--Kids aren't hyperactive or have too much energy. They have ADD and require Ritalin. --Why isn't my kid cut out to do Algebra in 2nd grade? It's not that he/she might have a disposition for the arts, but that I need to blame the school and the teachers. --"The Man" is holding me down. I find it odd that at my Fortune 500 company the "White male" is not the majority of VPs. --I'm not fat, it's just that I have a genetic disposition to eat tons of crappy food and avoid exercise. My genes make me buy ice cream and not even take a 10minute walk around the neighborhood every day. --I can't get a date b/c I have a genetic disposition to be single, and not because I want to date Hawaiian Tropic models and I look like Bill Gates and dress like a slob.
Damnit people, take a bit of responsibility, there's millions of cases out there of people finding their niche and succeeding or overcoming their obstacles to obtain greatness. I don't recall all the immigrants that came through Ellis Island in the early 1900s saying, "I can't be anything" and blamed everyone else.
There used to be an expression, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." I think to many people this now has become, "When the going gets tough, blame someone else."
Shouldn't someone with "aggression genes" get a longer sentence, to protect others from his aggressive behavior? Since when has "being an asshole" constituted extenuating circumstances? Oh, that's right -- if you are genetically an asshole, then that's ok! So, all I have to do is prove in court that my father and my grandfather where assholes too, and I can get away with murder? That shouldn't be too hard...
So when someone says, "A murderer deserves life imprisonment" what they mean is "I would feel better if that person was put in prison for life." I don't really see why people's feelings should be the basis for the criminal law system.
After you get stabbed 12 times, I'm pretty sure your pain receptors will cause a feeling of not wanting that to happen again (At least to yourself, if not to anyone else)
You've got to remember this is Europe, where they don't believe in punishing people. 9 years for murder is a harsh sentence in most European countries. And then they actually reduce a sentence because the guy is violent; shit, any logically thinking person would use this as a reason to increase it. I'd hate to think what their crime rates will look like 30 years from now.
It seems to be working, Italy has an annual murder rate of 1.05 per 100,000 people. The US, with it's much longer sentences and the death penalty still used on occasion is up at 5.8 per 100,000.
Correlation != causation, blah blah blah, but liberal western Europe has consistently low crime rates. Of course, if you look at the list, the real correlation behind crime is poverty. Western Europe, the various Oil rich nations and other countries with strong welfare system have lower crime. The countries where government support for the poor is slim to non-existent, or those where the government is essentially non-existent have high crime rates.
Whoa (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe I wouldn't have lost my job if I could have proven I have a laziness gene.
Re:Whoa (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I get your point (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
... personal responsibility? Controlling our behaviour is one of the things that differentiates us from animals.
Re:Where's the... (Score:4, Insightful)
Says who?
By the way, you may be surprised to learn that humans are animals. We're apes, more specifically.
Parent
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Funny)
Says who?
By the way, you may be surprised to learn that humans are animals. We're apes, more specifically.
Get your logic away from me you damned dirty ape!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personal responsibility is a pure fiction in a deterministic universe.
Everything that will ever happen was decided at the time of the Big Bang.
We just don't have the instruments to predict everything yet.
As our instruments get better, we will get better at understanding and predicting human behavior.
It is already clear that we are all products of our genetics and our environment.
If we're smart, we'll realize that protecting society from dangerous people is more important than crying about who has what gene,
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personal responsibility is a pure fiction in a deterministic universe.
Except that quantum mechanics implies that we are not in a deterministic universe. Replay the same actions twice and you won't necessarily get the same outcome.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A fair die has a 1/6 chance of producing each of its possible outcomes(a fair D6, that is). A loaded die might have a 100% chance of producing a 6 and no chance of any of the others. One of these is random, one is deterministic, neither is free.
Aside from the fact that it is intuitively powerful, it is actually pretty hard to figure out what it would mean for something to have "free will". Imagine a die that can "chose"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personal responsibility is a pure fiction in a deterministic universe. Everything that will ever happen was decided at the time of the Big Bang. We just don't have the instruments to predict everything yet.
There's no counter proof to this assertion. For a simple example, we can create a quantum system that can, when observed, collapse into one of two states. But we can't predict which of those two states that the system will collapse into. Even if a human were completely deterministic, all they have to do is use one of these systems to inject unpredictable randomness into their decision making.
In other words, you don't need to predict the behavior of a human being, you need to predict the behavior of this
Re:Where's the... (Score:4, Informative)
Good thing we don't live in one, then.
Nope. It is impossible, even at the most basic theoretical level, to predict everything. Basic physics theory shows that it is impossible to even just measure everything to an arbitrary degree of precision regardless of what instrumentation you may have. Go back and read your Heisenberg.
Parent
Superdeterminism (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. It is impossible, even at the most basic theoretical level, to predict everything. Basic physics theory shows that it is impossible to even just measure everything to an arbitrary degree of precision regardless of what instrumentation you may have. Go back and read your Heisenberg.
Actually, while complete measurement may be impossible, it does not mean that the actual underlying mechanics are not deterministic. In fact, superdeterminism [wikipedia.org] is considered a viable explanation of Bell's inequality that avoids ruling out a completely deterministic universe by abandoning any notion of free will in performing an experiment.
You can read a longer explanation here [everything2.com].
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're talking about people who commit murder, not Schroedinger's cat.
Even if the universe is not deterministic, my point is just as valid.
Nobody is really "responsible" for anything if you go back far enough.
We're all just bags of salt water.
The fact that subatomic particles can do some weird shit doesn't mean that I can change my genes, or my upbringing, or my parent's genese/upbringing, etc. etc. etc.
Every effect has a cause (in the macro world at least).
To extrapolate: every crime has an excuse.
Parent
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. I hold both these beliefs. The justice system is not about blame, it's about keeping criminals safe from society and (in my mind) rehabilitating them.
You would never blame a computer for a programmer's error, but you would try to fix the bugs, and if there was a dangerous bug you couldn't fix you wouldn't use that computer.
Parent
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't that make the punitive aspects of the prison system (which have not been demonstrated to serve any rehabilitative goal) unconscionable?
Parent
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hold similar beliefs, and to me, the punitive aspects of prison should only be as required to a) be a deterrence, b) serve as a lesson (as in you have to feel punished so you understand what you did is bad) and c) symbolically represent atonement to society. the latter part is really necessary because then the criminal can feel they deserved their punishment and got better from it, but also have the society consider someone who has finished his sentence as a new person.
Unfortunately, too many people feel that legal punishment is a means to avenge the victim. This is cruel, wasteful and essentially inefficient. Demand punishments as light as possible to deter: this will empty prisons, be less costly, and make for a more balanced society.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't that make the punitive aspects of the prison system (which have not been demonstrated to serve any rehabilitative goal) unconscionable?
Well, he said "keep criminals safe from society". As part of that, keeping criminals safe from revenge should be included. The punitive aspects of prison discourage retribution, especially if the avenger would also be subject to the same punishments as the criminal. I would argue that this aspect is very successful even in relatively violent cultures like those in the US. The criminal "pays his dues" and hence, sates the victims' desire for vengeance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. I hold both these beliefs. The justice system is not about blame, it's about keeping criminals safe from society and (in my mind) rehabilitating them.
The U.S. justice system is founded on the monastery model of repentance. See: Michael Foucault, "Discipline & Punish". The modern-day U.S. prison system is an industrial model that seeks taxpayer rent in exchange for effectively perpetual incarceration for anything that may be classified in the public's eyes as a crime. (See: Ann Krueger's paper on "rent seeking").
You would be very hard pressed to find anyone conscious of what the system is who would describe the prison system as something that in any way rehabilitates. In the criminal justice industry (lawyers, police, judges, etc.) often it's called "criminal college": where one learns the trade and networks. The prison system stigmatizes and ostracizes - it makes travel, finding a job, getting education all more difficult; it has no benefit for prisoners (in my opinion, and according to the three federal court judges I've asked this very question of). It also has questionable benefit or society - but that's a bigger question.
You would never blame a computer for a programmer's error, but you would try to fix the bugs, and if there was a dangerous bug you couldn't fix you wouldn't use that computer.
I agree. The prison system necessarily presumes culpability - i.e. that the criminal act was conducted of one's own free will. If it were otherwise the prison system would simply be segregation of those whose relationship with society is unacceptable because of factors they are unable to change - their genetics and/or environment, and our prison system would be analogous to apartheid.
There is some persuasive evidence that many crimes including aggression, theft, and abuse can all be linked to neurological/physiological traits. Unfortunately, it appears the NIH has little motivation to study neurological conditions giving rise to choice [psychologytoday.com], as a result of their choice of head.
Alas, the barbaric industrial prison complex will continue. But make no mistake, it's barbaric.
Parent
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Anyone who mounts a "my genes made me do it" defence should realize that their genes are, for now, immutable and so they are effectively claiming that they cannot be successfully rehabilitated and must be monitored or otherwise controlled for the rest of their lives.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This essentially reflects my belief. If a person has a genetic disposition to murder and acts on it, they shouldn't be "punished" for this, but may need to be isolated from society. Of course, if we can cure the physical ill (i.e. schizophrenia) then we should cure rather than isolate.
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
And before someone else points it out, yes I meant "keeping society safe from criminals". First cup of coffee, yadda yadda.
If this really is genetic, wouldn't that be an argument for the death penalty as a method of selecting against that gene? Seems to me that giving such a light sentence is counterproductive here, if in fact it is genetic.
Parent
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Interesting)
Is personal responsibility compatible with atheism? Before you break out the troll mods, I ask this in seriousness. If we are nothing more than a chemical being, then where does personal responsibility come into play?
How is this train of thought any different for a theist? "If God's creations, enacting his will, then where does personal responsibility come into play?"
But if you go down that 'lack of free will' route, then crime was predestined, this subsequent capture was predestined, the judge was predestined to set that particular sentence too, and everything about the whole world is basically pointless.
So it's best to assume free will exists for practical purposes. Save the metaphysics for those insomniac nights (or take a philosophy degree).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's always quantum mechanics to throw a wrench in there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You should read up on Kant's categorical imperative. I am an atheist and it is the closest thing to a written rationale for a universal morality that I can find. Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative [wikipedia.org]
The summary, from the wiki page:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
-b
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is personal responsibility compatible with atheism?
Maybe not. That's not just an atheistic question though - it goes right to the basis of free will.
However, we can accept for the sake of argument that we're all just clockwork beings with no more control of our destiny than a computer program. My programming is telling me that if I am going to continue to achieve my primary objectives (shorthanded as "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"), then dangers to those primary objects (including violent criminals) must be neutralized. This guy's genes may be an excuse, and an explanation for his actions. However, that certainly doesn't make him any less dangerous.
The only way I'd want him to get less time on the basis of his "aggressive genes" is if he were to undergo a chemical or genetic treatment that reduces the effects of those genes.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think personal responsibility is a crutch that people lean on instead of facing up to the fact that our problems and questions have difficult and complicated solutions. It's far easier to put responsibility on individuals than it is to admit that there may be genetic or social infrastructures issues that encourage criminality in some people and discourage it in others. If we can say the criminal is solely at fault for his actions, then we never acknowledge our own responsibility for the problems that the
Re:Where's the... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody controls their behavior any more than animals.
This is inconsistent with my experience of guilt (which, I would add, is very different from my experience of fear of retribution and punishment).
To anyone who might get angry at me for asserting this, ask whether your anger at me is consistent with your belief that I had no control over typing it.
Parent
Re:Where's the... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody controls their behavior any more than animals. In order to fit in we have to behave as though we want to fit in, it's simple feedback.
In other words, in order fit in we control our behavior so that we fit in?
Parent
Backwards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Backwards? (Score:5, Insightful)
By that logic, isn't he more dangerous, and therefore should get a longer sentence?
Only if the purpose of imprisonment is to keep dangerous people off the street.
Finding a consensus on the purpose of imprisonment is pretty much impossible.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To protect us from those persons who cannot recognize the validity of this statement: "No man has a right to harm another. And that is all the government should restrain him." The government's job is to restrain these persons in cages, to protect our inalienable rights.
Re:Backwards? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're confusing your own conviction, with a consensus.
Truly, there is no consensus, and there probably never will be.
Parent
Re:Backwards? (Score:4, Insightful)
Finding a consensus on the purpose of imprisonment is pretty much impossible.
True. However, it would be extremely strange for a prison to release an inmate a year early because he is displaying unusually aggressive behaviour.
Parent
Why can it only be one? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sentencing of Blue and White colar criminals are going to be aimed at punishment and a warning to others that may be tempted to perpetrate similar acts (embezlement, breaking and entering, etc.). The ancillary effects of incarceration (loss of job, being ostrasized by friends/family, difficulty finding a job post incarceration) are as much part of the punishement as the actuall time spent in prison.
The sentencing of violent offenders is going to be targeted more at punishing the perpetrator and protecting the innocent. That's why they tend to have longer sentences and are locked up in higher security facilities than their blue collar compatriots. Rehabilitation is more important, but less successful with certain groups of violent criminals and thus they serve longer sentences and are occationally euthanized by the state (depending on where they are incarcerated).
The death penalty is the ultimate in both punishment of the criminal and protection of society, and IMO not to be used lightly. It should never be used for those that have not proven themselves to be violently dangerous to the rest of society (ie tax fraud doesn't deserve a needle, but repeated homocides does).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why would you use him as an actor in an amateur remake of Saw?
Re:Backwards? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Backwards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems a little bit backwards there.
If I'm actually genetically predisposed to violence, keeping me in society might not be the best course of action.
Seems to me, those that are _not_ predisposed to violence have a better chance of rehabilitating than those that aren't. Shouldn't they need less time in the slammer to rehabilitate?
Predisposed to violence = more time in?
Not Predisposed = less time in?
Ah... do you smell that? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the smell of free will going out the window, courtesy of people thinking that gene==unable to overcome that impulse. And with free will out the window, there's no liability. And with no liability... well, the court system we have is completely unworkable.
I was wondering when that issue was going to crop up. Thankfully, Italy seems bound to test just how much of a disaster that road will be.
The only solution to this is to ignore genetic predisposition when judging a convicted criminal.
Or, to put it differently: we have no choice but to believe in free will. Our society depends on it.
Not Fair (Score:4, Informative)
Not surprising... (Score:3, Insightful)
Society has been on a tear lately always looking to avoid personal responsibility and blame someone (or in this case, something else). For example,
--Kids aren't hyperactive or have too much energy. They have ADD and require Ritalin.
--Why isn't my kid cut out to do Algebra in 2nd grade? It's not that he/she might have a disposition for the arts, but that I need to blame the school and the teachers.
--"The Man" is holding me down. I find it odd that at my Fortune 500 company the "White male" is not the majority of VPs.
--I'm not fat, it's just that I have a genetic disposition to eat tons of crappy food and avoid exercise. My genes make me buy ice cream and not even take a 10minute walk around the neighborhood every day.
--I can't get a date b/c I have a genetic disposition to be single, and not because I want to date Hawaiian Tropic models and I look like Bill Gates and dress like a slob.
Damnit people, take a bit of responsibility, there's millions of cases out there of people finding their niche and succeeding or overcoming their obstacles to obtain greatness. I don't recall all the immigrants that came through Ellis Island in the early 1900s saying, "I can't be anything" and blamed everyone else.
There used to be an expression, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." I think to many people this now has become, "When the going gets tough, blame someone else."
But... (Score:4, Insightful)
...don't we need to keep him locked up *longer*, since he's more likely to do it again?
Following that line of reasoning... (Score:4, Insightful)
The alcholic who was drunk driving and killed someone should get a reduced sentence?
That's backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Right... (Score:4, Interesting)
So when someone says, "A murderer deserves life imprisonment" what they mean is "I would feel better if that person was put in prison for life." I don't really see why people's feelings should be the basis for the criminal law system.
After you get stabbed 12 times, I'm pretty sure your pain receptors will cause a feeling of not wanting that to happen again (At least to yourself, if not to anyone else)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You've got to remember this is Europe, where they don't believe in punishing people. 9 years for murder is a harsh sentence in most European countries. And then they actually reduce a sentence because the guy is violent; shit, any logically thinking person would use this as a reason to increase it. I'd hate to think what their crime rates will look like 30 years from now.
Re:Overlooking the fact (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent