The "not invented here" syndrome

How about we let the criminal choose the way their execution is carried out? Or, would that be too much mental cruelty?

You're going to use modern technology to immerse yourself into the 50s? Sounds counterproductive. :)

I guess it's better than being dead. :)

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 01:57:01 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" quickly quoth:

A freakin' MEN. Our legal, penal, and governmental systems are all horribly broken.

Is everyone stocked up (food, water, ammo) so when (not if) the fit hits the shan, they're going to survive it well?

Does anyone have plans for a bicycle-powered generator?

-- Anyone who has gumption knows what it is, and anyone who hasn't can never know what it is. So there is no need of defining it. -- L. M. Montgomery, Anne of the Island, 1915

Damn ! I opened this thread again and was amazed at all the crap that spilled out ! Sorta like Fibber Mcghee's closet, huh, Ed and Harold ?

Bob Swinney

:-)

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 22:21:13 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth:

Um, what are stringed instruments doing in this discussion, Ed?

-- Anyone who has gumption knows what it is, and anyone who hasn't can never know what it is. So there is no need of defining it. -- L. M. Montgomery, Anne of the Island, 1915

Is that anywhere besides the King James Version of the bible? What about all the other religions in the world? ...lew...

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:52:15 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, "Dave Lyon" quickly quoth:

And make it legal for them to choose NOT to appeal their case. Shouldn't they also have the right to a speedy execution? Crikey!

Certainly it would be very Christian to treat murderers as we would wish them to treat us.

But that approach has serious drawbacks, which is why it has never been popular, even among people who call themselves Christian.

No, I was addressing the question Mr Jaques posed.

Not relevant to what I was responding to.

Such as?

There are some characters on misc.survivalist.nutballs who would call you a "statist" for saying something like that. I, on the other hand, would say you're a good citizen. d8-)

No, no, no. As I made clear, these are NOT excuses for his behavior. Nor are they reasons to exempt him from punishment. Just be aware that (according to some very smart shrinks who have studied this matter, as well as some insightful old philosophers), he doesn't accept your laws. At the time he committed his crime, it was the "right" thing for him to do, or he wouldn't have done it. If he's a sociopath, as many criminals are, he doesn't give a flying f*ck for anyone but himself, anyway, so everything that furthers his interests is "right" to him.

It's one of those old mind-twisters that I usually try to avoid these days, but this one is on my mind whenever the subject of crime and punishment comes up. It helps clear up what is going on. He does not "condemn himself," as you said in an earlier post. WE condemn him. He just followed his own sense of what is right, which happens to conflict with society's sense of what is right. Society wins this argument, when we're talking about someone who lives in a given society, or who transgresses against a given society. If they decide to fry him, they're within their right to do so, IMO.

That's one of the costs of living in society. You play by the rules. When the rules are produced through a reasonably democratic process, like ours, then the criminal fries...or spends a lifetime in prison, or whatever.

Put the nonsense about "free will" aside for a moment. Free will has nothing to do with it. The transgression itself is the issue. It doesn't matter what you were thinking at the time; it's the act itself that we punish.

To me, this helps clarify my thoughts on two subjects: "hate crimes," which are illegitimate outrages because they're about the way one thinks; and the irrelevance of one's own sense of morality when one lives in a nation of laws.

Exactly. But WE are the ones who condemn him for violating society's rules. He'd rather just skip out, because he doesn't buy it.

True enough. But if he doesn't accept your laws (and he more or less doesn't, by definition), then WE impose our laws on him. He committed the crime but he didn't condemn himself in the process. He doesn't buy your rules. He doesn't accept your morality. He wants to escape the punishment, and will be quite happy if he does.

That isn't condemning oneself, Harold. That's getting caught.

Again, it's a matter of being clear about what's going on here, and avoiding deluding ourselves with sophistry and abstractions. Society sets the rules. The criminal breaks them. We punish him or kill him, because we're pissed off and want payback, because we have a huge investment in making, observing, and enforcing our laws, and we need to restore an emotional equilibrium that justifies all that we have invested, as individuals and as a society, and which the criminal has knocked out of balance. It's called vengeance, but a nicer way to put it is something like "restoration of emotional equilibrium." Fairness, in other words.

Crime and punishment in one simple, undelusional paragraph. d8-) Maybe we'll correct his behavior if we punish him without killing him. But that's secondary. The payback is primary. If it wasn't so, we wouldn't have a death penalty.

He is, he is. But stick to "his behavior." Don't get tangled up in "his choices." When you start looking into his mind, you are in terra incognita.

That doesn't sound much like condemning oneself. It sounds like taking a chance and losing. That's NOTHING like you were saying in the last message. You've turned a matter of "free will" into a casino game with life-and-death stakes.

You're mixing your metaphors, Harold. But nearly everyone does when they start talking about "justice" and "punishment" of criminality, in my experience. All of which reinforces the idea that we get into trouble when we start applying abstractions to the simple, unadorned facts of the matter.

You're putting words in my mouth. Personally, I'd burn 'em, if I had the confidence that we're always burning the right people. If not burn them, then put them away forever with no chance of parole. And I accept our need for vengeance. I'd have no trouble making life truly miserable for them while they're in prison. It would restore the necessary equilibrium that all emotionally healthy people (as Nietzsche would define them ) require. That is to say, people who haven't been Skinnerized into a domesticated placidity.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that statement is the product of not caring. It's the product of caring quite a lot, and letting the criminal know that you care enough about what he did that you would devalue his life. You want to impress upon him (and anyone watching) that you don't care whether he suffers. Your punishment is to let him know that you've devalued his life, that you've *dehumanized* him to the degree that you don't care about his suffering. It's your message that he's forfeited his rights as a human being. That's the aspect of punishment that restores your sense of equilibrium and fairness in this case.

It's roundabout, but it's very human in its unadorned state.

-- Ed Huntress

I was trying to help Harold.

-- Ed Huntress

How about a pedal-powered grave digger? You get a good workout, and then you jump in. All the survivalists should have one.

-- Ed Huntress

Jeez, I didn't think anyone was *that* old.

-- Ed Huntress

Be glad it wasn't a harp.

-- Ed Huntress

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:20:01 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth:

Gee, I'm sorry to have reminded you about your age, Ed. I guess a guy gets overly sensitive when they're closing in on 3 digits. ;)

No it wouldn't.

The Bible talks very specifically about how criminals should be treated. You won't find "turn the other cheek" in that area.