It's idiotic that they rejected your post but shit happens.
Anyways, I agree with you to an extent. We put people in jail because we lack creativity. It's the be all end all solution to all sorts of different human behaviours.
I'm on board with punishing people in exactly the same manner they treated their victims. I'm sure many criminals know if they get caught for raping/torturing kids, animals or women, they'll just get a cushy cell but not have to suffer in the way their victims did. So they happily commit their crimes-its no deterrent to extremely bad behaviour. I think knowing they could suffer in the same way if caught would serve as a deterrent.
However in some cases putting people in jail makes sense since you remove them from society, yet they might not deserve death. Plus if the evidence is weak that they harmed someone, then we could end up punishing someone innocent.
I think however people should be killed for violently raping someone. I could never imagine doing such a thing-this it is an act of an evil mind/person. However I don't include 'date rape' because I've known of many cases where the girl willingly had sex, then turned around and called it rape.
As for theft, they should pay off their debts, so they're taught a lesson-unless violence was involved, that could change things.
But here's the thing about murder, right now we treat everyone as equals, but say you kill someone for raping your child, I think that person deserves to be set free and the rapist deserved to die. So killing with a good enough reason should let someone off. I'm saying all this in a rough draft sense.
I'd add one more point, I think criminality is ultimately genetic, so we'd need to find out which humans behave in this way and maybe just weed them out of the gene pool to eventually end most crimes.
The problem is that if we were able to isolate the genes which increase the likelihood of someone committing crimes what would we do with the people identified as having these genes? Would it be moral to kill them or monitor their behaviour even if they had committed no crimes? Would we also need to take into account the environment in which they were raised and their personal levels of aggression and empathy for other people before taking measures?
Then there's the question of how we would find out who has the genes in the first place. Would we check only convicted criminals, or would everyone be compulsively checked at a certain age? How would people be treated once others knew they had the "criminal genes", what would they think of themselves? It's an ethical minefield.
The low-hanging fruit in this case would be sociopaths. We know their brains are wired differently, it's already been proven scientifically. They have shallow emotions, lack the ability to empathize with others and this disorder tends to be predominant among serial killers. Of course that's a small minority of all sociopaths, most of whom will likely never hurt anyone.
Of course ideology (political or religious) along with the socioeconomic status also play a significant role.
I think the prudent thing would be to perhaps create parallel societies or they would have to be monitored or kept in institutions for most of their lives.
Some people are parasites in society-think of pimps or the global sex-trafficking trade. Why should we not wipe out people who do such things to others?
Of course there is the danger of false-positives, getting 'normal' people labelled as abnormal and the creation of surveillance societies, which to an extent they are already. However we don't have the same level of state coercion and intimidation we see in Communist, Islamic or fascist nations.
While it is a complex, thorny issue, I don't believe it is intractable. It can be solved and I think we can achieve something closer to a more civilized society.
Is It Normal That I'm Largely Opposed To Incarceration?
← View full post
It's idiotic that they rejected your post but shit happens.
Anyways, I agree with you to an extent. We put people in jail because we lack creativity. It's the be all end all solution to all sorts of different human behaviours.
I'm on board with punishing people in exactly the same manner they treated their victims. I'm sure many criminals know if they get caught for raping/torturing kids, animals or women, they'll just get a cushy cell but not have to suffer in the way their victims did. So they happily commit their crimes-its no deterrent to extremely bad behaviour. I think knowing they could suffer in the same way if caught would serve as a deterrent.
However in some cases putting people in jail makes sense since you remove them from society, yet they might not deserve death. Plus if the evidence is weak that they harmed someone, then we could end up punishing someone innocent.
I think however people should be killed for violently raping someone. I could never imagine doing such a thing-this it is an act of an evil mind/person. However I don't include 'date rape' because I've known of many cases where the girl willingly had sex, then turned around and called it rape.
As for theft, they should pay off their debts, so they're taught a lesson-unless violence was involved, that could change things.
But here's the thing about murder, right now we treat everyone as equals, but say you kill someone for raping your child, I think that person deserves to be set free and the rapist deserved to die. So killing with a good enough reason should let someone off. I'm saying all this in a rough draft sense.
I'd add one more point, I think criminality is ultimately genetic, so we'd need to find out which humans behave in this way and maybe just weed them out of the gene pool to eventually end most crimes.
--
SkullsNRoses
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The problem is that if we were able to isolate the genes which increase the likelihood of someone committing crimes what would we do with the people identified as having these genes? Would it be moral to kill them or monitor their behaviour even if they had committed no crimes? Would we also need to take into account the environment in which they were raised and their personal levels of aggression and empathy for other people before taking measures?
Then there's the question of how we would find out who has the genes in the first place. Would we check only convicted criminals, or would everyone be compulsively checked at a certain age? How would people be treated once others knew they had the "criminal genes", what would they think of themselves? It's an ethical minefield.
--
lufa
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
The low-hanging fruit in this case would be sociopaths. We know their brains are wired differently, it's already been proven scientifically. They have shallow emotions, lack the ability to empathize with others and this disorder tends to be predominant among serial killers. Of course that's a small minority of all sociopaths, most of whom will likely never hurt anyone.
Of course ideology (political or religious) along with the socioeconomic status also play a significant role.
I think the prudent thing would be to perhaps create parallel societies or they would have to be monitored or kept in institutions for most of their lives.
Some people are parasites in society-think of pimps or the global sex-trafficking trade. Why should we not wipe out people who do such things to others?
Of course there is the danger of false-positives, getting 'normal' people labelled as abnormal and the creation of surveillance societies, which to an extent they are already. However we don't have the same level of state coercion and intimidation we see in Communist, Islamic or fascist nations.
While it is a complex, thorny issue, I don't believe it is intractable. It can be solved and I think we can achieve something closer to a more civilized society.