Germaine Greer calls for punishment for rape to be reduced

[WAB]

Being raped, beat up or spit on -- what are we punishing, the physical harm or the insult? If the latter factors in then so does culture, as insult is a cultural construct.
Another question: What are we trying to accomplish with 'punishment'?

What does this even mean, seyorni? Somehow you've reduced rape to a "cultural construct." Wonderful! You win the coveted "Germaine Greer Let's Trivialize Rape" award, except what you did is even sillier than what Greer is doing. Note how you go from "being raped" to "spit on", as if there's no difference along that short spectrum you've nicely "constructed" for yourself.

Did you read my long post, that bit at the end where Greer equates female genital mutilation to getting a tattoo? What are your thoughts on female genital mutilation? Ought we to allow people to do it to young girls? Maybe as babies so they won't remember the trauma?

**

To answer your 2nd question: what punishment accomplishes is a strong incentive for a criminal to not repeat the crime.

Even if there is recidivism, well, at least we gave it a shot. Without punishment, there are precious few means of curtailing crime, unless you go for something like transorbital lobotomies. I ask you, what's preferable, a prison sentence followed by a chance for a new life, or a permanent 'life' as a vegetable?

I realize there are people (like Nathaniel Hawthorne's son Julian, who wrote a book on the subject) who believe there should be no such thing as a prison. Hawthorne had spent time in prison for some kind of fraud, and was duly shaken by the experience. He truly believed that we could rehabilitate any criminal just by being nice to them and instilling positive values into them. He believed that because he had a remarkable genius for a father and what he himself called a wonderful upbringing, full of love and support. He had a reason for being optimistic.

I'd like to know, just how the fuck do you instill positive values into someone like a violent rapist without some kind of restraint on his/her physical freedom? So we would have rehabs instead of jails and prisons: places the violent criminal would either be able to escape from easily (these are clever-dicks, a good amount of the time), or a place where they could run roughshod over the poor gentle staff trying to help them, potentially turning those poor souls into criminals themselves through anger and constant resentment, and a sense of total futility, I might add.

Please note, I object to execution performed by the state; though I do not necessarily object to private retribution. I would hope a person could show restraint; but if they had a child violently raped, I can't say I would blame them if they took matters into their own hands. As I said in my prior post, Nature has imperatives that trump the legalities of this issue, or any issue.

I ask you, finally, imagine a world where rapists were mollycoddled and babied in the manner Greer suggests. Every potential rapist would have carte blanche to rape away, with literally no fear. Do you really think that's a good thing?

 

[WAB]

For that situation you describe, at the very least 5 years in prison. I notice you avoid saying what kind of sex act. But then, what kind of sex act can be administered at knife-point? Oral sex, at least five years. For forced intercourse, at least ten. Depending on the amount of physical or psychological harm caused, perhaps upwards of twenty. No fucking around.

I would object to execution, since I object to execution performed by the state in any case, for any crime. However, if I knew a man whose son or daughter was violently raped, I wouldn't say boo if that man carried out his own brand of justice, and I wouldn't report him even if he killed his daughter's (or son's) rapist.

Nature has imperatives that trump the legalities of such issues, or any issues. If someone violently raped one of my sons, I just might want to kill that person. Luckily, I don't know, and hope I will never have to know.

I hope that's clear enough.

OK, I say more punishment than that. I guess I'm not as soft on rape as you are.

I don't think I'm soft on rape, certainly not violent rape. But no doubt not nearly as harsh as others. However, I did mention that I would not turn anyone in or say boo to anyone who killed the rapist of their child, and that I might even want to kill someone who raped my own child. That's not exactly soft. I would hope, however, that I would NOT do that.

 

[Valjean]

Being raped, beat up or spit on -- what are we punishing, the physical harm or the insult? If the latter factors in then so does culture, as insult is a cultural construct.
Another question: What are we trying to accomplish with 'punishment'?

What does this even mean, seyorni? Somehow you've reduced rape to a "cultural construct." Wonderful! You win the coveted "Germaine Greer Let's Trivialize Rape" award, except what you did is even sillier than what Greer is doing. Note how you go from "being raped" to "spit on", as if there's no difference along that short spectrum you've nicely "constructed" for yourself.

Did you read my long post, that bit at the end where Greer equates female genital mutilation to getting a tattoo? What are your thoughts on female genital mutilation? Ought we to allow people to do it to young girls? Maybe as babies so they won't remember the trauma?

I am playing devils advocate here, but in an effort to make people think about crime and justice, rather than just react emotionally or vindictively. I'm addressing justice in the abstract.
And yes, I'm against FGM. It harms.

What sort of actions do we consider criminal? actions that are actually harmful? actions that violate social norms, or annoy us, or insult us? I think it's a mixture of all these. I think in many cases more attention is paid to assuaging public ire than in actually trying to correct the problem.

Even if there is recidivism, well, at least we gave it a shot. Without punishment, there are precious few means of curtailing crime, unless you go for something like transorbital lobotomies. I ask you, what's preferable, a prison sentence followed by a chance for a new life, or a permanent 'life' as a vegetable?

But we're not giving crime reduction a shot. We're warehousing, and ignoring the underlying social and mental defects that led to the crime in the first place.
In re your 2nd question, I don't have the answers. I'm advocating discussing the problem; looking at how other societies approach crime, and trying new approaches. Nor am I necessarily opposed to medical or surgical intervention in certain cases.
Criminals don't often think things through or do risk-benefit analyses. They tend to be impulsive. Harsher penalties rarely dissuade them, and never correct the mental defect that led to the crime.

I'd like to know, just how the fuck do you instill positive values into someone like a violent rapist without some kind of restraint on his/her physical freedom? So we would have rehabs instead of jails and prisons: places the violent criminal would either be able to escape from easily (these are clever-dicks, a good amount of the time), or a place where they could run roughshod over the poor gentle staff trying to help them, potentially turning those poor souls into criminals themselves through anger and constant resentment, and a sense of total futility, I might add.

I think diagnostics should be a first step, and I think psychotherapy might prove an effective tool. If there's a physical or physiological problem we might even try castration to reduce drive or careful cryoablation to break toxic feedback loops. Put everything on the table for discussion. Just locking people up isn't fixing the underlying problems.
As for actual imprisonment, treat the prisoners like animals and they'll act like animals; give respect and you'll get respect. You can extract vengeance, or you can try to fix the problem.

I ask you, finally, imagine a world where rapists were mollycoddled and babied in the manner Greer suggests. Every potential rapist would have carte blanche to rape away, with literally no fear. Do you really think that's a good thing?

Consider:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IepJqxRCZY

 

[WAB]

I am playing devils advocate here, but in an effort to make people think about crime and justice, rather than just react emotionally or vindictively. I'm addressing justice in the abstract.
And yes, I'm against FGM. It harms.

What sort of actions do we consider criminal? actions that are actually harmful? actions that violate social norms, or annoy us, or insult us? I think it's a mixture of all these. I think in many cases more attention is paid to assuaging public ire than in actually trying to correct the problem.

Even if there is recidivism, well, at least we gave it a shot. Without punishment, there are precious few means of curtailing crime, unless you go for something like transorbital lobotomies. I ask you, what's preferable, a prison sentence followed by a chance for a new life, or a permanent 'life' as a vegetable?

But we're not giving crime reduction a shot. We're warehousing, and ignoring the underlying social and mental defects that led to the crime in the first place.
In re your 2nd question, I don't have the answers. I'm advocating discussing the problem; looking at how other societies approach crime, and trying new approaches. Nor am I necessarily opposed to medical or surgical intervention in certain cases.
Criminals don't often think things through or do risk-benefit analyses. They tend to be impulsive. Harsher penalties rarely dissuade them, and never correct the mental defect that led to the crime.

I'd like to know, just how the fuck do you instill positive values into someone like a violent rapist without some kind of restraint on his/her physical freedom? So we would have rehabs instead of jails and prisons: places the violent criminal would either be able to escape from easily (these are clever-dicks, a good amount of the time), or a place where they could run roughshod over the poor gentle staff trying to help them, potentially turning those poor souls into criminals themselves through anger and constant resentment, and a sense of total futility, I might add.

I think diagnostics should be a first step, and I think psychotherapy might prove an effective tool. If there's a physical or physiological problem we might even try castration to reduce drive or careful cryoablation to break toxic feedback loops. Put everything on the table for discussion. Just locking people up isn't fixing the underlying problems.
As for actual imprisonment, treat the prisoners like animals and they'll act like animals; give respect and you'll get respect. You can extract vengeance, or you can try to fix the problem.

I ask you, finally, imagine a world where rapists were mollycoddled and babied in the manner Greer suggests. Every potential rapist would have carte blanche to rape away, with literally no fear. Do you really think that's a good thing?

Consider:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IepJqxRCZY

Alright, I'll look at the video.

And in a way I am being nasty without the real desire to be nasty.

I agree that we need to discuss underlying reasons for criminal behavior. I am all for a world with less criminals.

Am watching vid. Damn Norway is gorgeous. I live in the desert. The place looks like paradise. But so far so good. I won't be able to give a full response till later. I have to go see my councilor in a few...

 

[WAB]

Where are the family & friends of the victims? Where is their opinion?

Hi there!

I watched the video, and while I liked the countryside of Norway, I was appalled after a few minutes, though being initially impressed. It just took me a moment to turn the emotion off and focus on Reason.

One has to keep one's emotions far from this kind of thing. I am sure you will regard my response as being anchored in emotion, but the reality is I am being as objective as possible; and what I think is that a video of this nature is geared toward achieving an emotional response in the viewer: i.e. it wants the viewer to FORGET that there are victims; to FORGET that there are family, friends, and loved ones of the victims of these criminals. Michael Moore seems to act as if there were no such thing as a victim, just criminals who rape, harm, and even dispatch vague abstractions instead of human beings. Please note I say "seems to". I know he bears victims and victimhood very much in mind, since he talks about recidivism, which is victim-oriented.

Just to deal with the one man with the tattoo on his head, a confessed murderer. Nothing is mentioned about the extenuating circumstances of this murder; and I'm pretty sure it might have been brought up if there were any. Hence, I can only conclude that this murder was unjustified. I must also assume that there are loved ones left out in the cold, or, left, certainly, without a say in this video. No doubt you can find me a video where the family of victims of violent crime just LOVE this idea of babying and coddling criminals, and good on them. The ONLY people I am concerned for (and I am not concerned one whit for any cold-blooded killer or rapist in this video, thanks very much) are those people who are NOT fine with their loved one's killer or rapist being treated to a nice vacation in the lovely countryside of beautiful Norway.

That's what bothered me. I think the fact that Norway has a recidivism rate of only 20%, as opposed to 80% in the US is fantastic, really, as that means far less OTHER people will become victims of violent crime. This is all well and good, except for the victims, and the presumably innocent people who have been permanently impacted by having a loved one removed from them; and then, having insult added to injury by knowing that the asshat who killed or raped their loved one is living at a country club not even faintly disguised as a prison!

The only "punishment" administered is their so-called lack of freedom. Ah, the poor dears can't see their friends and loved ones, whom they can know, at least, are alive and well. Poor lost lambs.

Hell, I haven't even committed a crime, but I'd love to live in that "prison". No worries about how I'm going to make a living, lots of good food, a computer, books, the whole shebang! I live in Buttfuck USA, where I will have to work until I'm into my seventees, because I have the audacity of being a low-income wage earner all my life save for a couple years in management. Not being able to escape? Who in their right mind, being in my position, would even think about escaping?

It reminds me of when those deep ecology guys cut a big hole in a fence where some wolves (I think they were wolves) lived, protected and fed on a very large preserve. There is a famous picture of the wolves lying right by the cut-out hole, with these looks on their faces (not literally but it was funny, seeing the deep ecology guys trying to infuse the sentiment of "Home Free" into them.) These clever wolves were basically saying, "What the fuck, are you humans out of your minds? We no longer have to hunt for our food, we have plenty of acreage to roam, and we got it good! So please, fix this hole in our fence, before some fucking BEAR crawls in!"

[Before anyone regards this as some half-assed excuse for slavery, um, NO! The slave-trade, which I have studied, was beyond barbaric. It was a hideous black mark on the face of humanity. Slaves were jammed into stinking ship-holds like sardines, still cuffed and bound; many of them died in passage to whatever evil plantation they would be kept at, their pride and dignity as human beings completely destroyed, their families broken up. I am tremendously claustrophobic, so even putting my sorry ass in those barbaric cuffs would be sufficient to put my lights out, but I'd be lucky. Even a great movie like Amistad gives a watered-down version of the sickness and psychopathology of the slave-traders. The great black poet, Robert Hayden, wrote an excellent poem called "Middle Passage", which I am about to post in the Poetry thread. Please read it, as he gives a more accurate account.]

Onward:

Nah, while I am really cool with the low rate of repeat offenders, I am NOT down with sending killers and rapists to a country club for some R&R. It's a grave offense to the victims of their crimes. It is an affront to common decency.

Norway would probably have a low recidivism rate even if they had prisons that bore some resemblance to prisons, because Norway, well, it ain't downtown Compton or The Bronx. And the country has nowhere near the population of the US. In fact, the entire country has half the population of New York City alone.

I also think the ridiculous level of repeat offense in the US has many factors which have little or nothing to do with the prison system. In fact, before I continue, I know two people who claim their stay in prison, one of them for several years, was not nearly as bad as they thought it would be.

Factors for recidivism here in Buttfuck USA (possibly, this is just my theory)

1) High incidence of Gangs and such-like. A lot of these people come out of prison with nowhere to go, and their only family is a gang. These are black, hispanic, white, other. Since they have little prospect for work, they drift right back to a life of crime.
2) Over-zealous police. We all know how the police will arrest any person with a dark face at the drop of a hat. Many of these repeat offenders may not even BE repeat offenders, but wholly innocent.
3) Shitty economy, racism, over-population, shitty housing, and shithead racists in charge of hiring people.
4) Hollywood: the modern film industry is in love with crime, and you can scarcely watch a feature film wherein there is not someone being beaten senseless, and/or wherein there will not be a multitude of guns wielded by really SEXY actors and actresses. Crime, even violent crime, is idolized in Buttfuck, USA. It just so happens punishment is as well.
5) Gun culture (see above). I live in the Wild, Wild West, where if you're a "man", you simply MUST own a gun. Many so-called "men" even wear the fucking things on their side, since we have open carry here. And the real irony? Lake Havasu, where I reside, has an extremely low violent crime rate, and very few break-ins or robberies, even though there are tons of very wealthy people here! I can only imagine what it must be like—a slew of wanna-be cowboys with guns in holsters, running around in a big, crime-ridden city like Phoenix. It boggles the mind. I have no gun, want no gun, and hate guns, unless they be in the hands of a Federal Marshal, a trained soldier, marksman, or a cop who is humane and won't shoot innocent people with it.​

I got more if you want. But I doubt anyone will read this and request more.

 

[RVonse]

The bible says an eye for an eye and the punishment should always fit the crime IMO.. So chain the convicted criminal naked and then let the victim violate him with a big black dildo penis.

That would serve 3 functions:

1. Prevent recidivism due to knowing first hand what it feels like to have an unwanted cock rammed up your ass.

2. Save a bunch of tax money on jail cells.

3. Give the victim a feeling of satisfaction knowing that the proper justice has been served.

I know many here are atheists but you really do have to give the bible credit for wisdom in knowing the proper course of action.

 

[WAB]

The bible says an eye for an eye and the punishment should always fit the crime IMO.. So chain the convicted criminal naked and then let the victim violate him with a big black dildo penis.

That would serve 3 functions:

1. Prevent recidivism due to knowing first hand what it feels like to have an unwanted cock rammed up your ass.

2. Save a bunch of tax money on jail cells.

3. Give the victim a feeling of satisfaction knowing that the proper justice has been served.

I know many here are atheists but you really do have to give the bible credit for wisdom in knowing the proper course of action.

Yeah, right.

Why does it seem like I see nothing but sarcasm after something I post? Your number three is transparent so at least I can proceed with knowing that I need not treat this tripe as serious:

First, if you are directing this to everyone, it's just plain stupid; if you're directing it at me, it's just plain stupid.

Did you read my post? Or posts? Did I mention anything about cruel or unusual punishment? Fuck no. It ought to have been clear that any kind of punishment referred to was prison time, in an actual prison, you know, where they put people behind bars, making their stay uncomfortable?

As usual, your sarcastic nonsense, as I mentioned to someone else, is emotional blackmail, and as such, it cannot work on someone who is rational.

If anyone is talking about letting rapists be raped, please point me to whom that person might be, so I can tear them a new ass verbally, thanks. And I'm just the guy to do it.

I have, in a past thread (here or elsewhere, I join many discussion fora), strongly objected to putting rapists together, for what logical reason? —

Putting a rapist in with other rapists, even the ultimate scum, a rapist of children, is fundamentally evil because it rewards other rapists, by providing them someone to rape. You don't punish one rapist by rewarding another.

My idea?

Keep rapists apart from one another, perhaps even in some solitary confinement that is not claustrophobic and has nothing to do with sensory deprivation. Keep the cells well-lit, and let them be normal in every other way, except that, and this is key here: the system does not allow for the rewarding of one rapist with the opportunity of raping another rapist, for that would not only be cruel and unusual, it would be...and this is key: a reward for the rapist who is allowed to rape another rapist.

We ought not reward rapists, and we ought not punish them in a cruel and unusual way. Unfortunately, rapists in-house are allowed to rape other rapists, and other inmates guilty of far lesser crimes. That's because here in Buttfuck, Amerika (Great song and video by Rammstein by the way), we adore and idolize violence, and we teach prison guards (by way of stupid Hollywood trash and even rotten television) that the way to do their jobs is to turn their heads and, essentially, NOT perform the jobs entrusted to them and for which they are paid.

A great way to improve the prison system in the US of A, and reduce recidivism:

• Make the guards earn their money and not turn away from in-house violence.
• Terminate and maybe even arrest* any guard whom a court can prove allowed any prisoner to harm another prisoner through neglect of duties and/or on purpose*.
• Increase the number of guards in the places where violent criminals are held, and reduce the number of guards where victim-less criminals and minor offenders are kept.
• Tax the millionaires & billionaires more, so there will be more tax money allotted to improve the prison systems.
• Let there be zero income tax for low income workers. Let them pay tax by spending their hard-earned money howsoever they choose, even on hootch, drugs, and cigarettes, and don't commit the travesty of taxing their already pitifully inadequate earnings.
• Make all drugs legal. Drugs would still be illegal for minors, and it would still be illegal to drive or operate machinery while under the influence. This will make more room for killers and rapists, and other violent criminals in the overcrowded prisons and jails.
• Screen all potential policemen for racist tendencies, with intensive testing and extensive history checks, including any and all comments on social media. You want to be a cop and carry a deadly weapon, you should WANT this willingly. I would, if I were going to try and be a cop. In fact, I'd welcome it with pleasure. This might avail to keep some innocent people out of prison, and out of harm's way.
• Demand extensive background checks on anyone wishing to own a gun. And do not allow the sale of fucking machine guns for Christ's sake, to some asshat with an inordinate lust for weaponry.
• Stop the absurd assumption that anyone who isn't a knee-jerk liberal really, secretly, wants to harm someone. In my experience, the finest people are classic liberal (far from the far-left, regressive types we see so much of lately). For anything to improve, we should have clear, rational conversation on all issues, without the stupidity of sarcasm, unless said sarcasm is marked with bilby's favorite, the rolling eyes (which really work well, by the way), or with the easy and explicit, /sarcasm.

Alright, that last bit was not too relevant; but I had to get it out.


````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

On the very off-chance you were NOT being sarcastic, well hell, sorry; but if that's the case, your solution is contemptible.

 

[Axulus]

Lol, I'm pretty sure he was being serious and not sarcastic.

 

[Valjean]

Hi there!

I watched the video, and while I liked the countryside of Norway, I was appalled after a few minutes, though being initially impressed. It just took me a moment to turn the emotion off and focus on Reason.

One has to keep one's emotions far from this kind of thing. I am sure you will regard my response as being anchored in emotion, but the reality is I am being as objective as possible; and what I think is that a video of this nature is geared toward achieving an emotional response in the viewer:

Of course it's geared toward an emotional response -- it's Michael Moore, for heaven's sake! He's a working class schlub aiming at working class schlubs, but his video is underlain with solid, dispassionate, empirical sociology.
The European approach to criminology is focused more on correcting the problem than on satisfying the emotional ire of the victims. It's focused on achieving results -- and it does.

i.e. it wants the viewer to FORGET that there are victims; to FORGET that there are family, friends, and loved ones of the victims of these criminals. Michael Moore seems to act as if there were no such thing as a victim, just criminals who rape, harm, and even dispatch vague abstractions instead of human beings. Please note I say "seems to". I know he bears victims and victimhood very much in mind, since he talks about recidivism, which is victim-oriented.

The harm has already been done. Nothing will undo it. The American system aims to prevent personal vendetta with a system of government vendetta.
Our justice system aims to hurt the criminal to satisfy the anger of the victims. This it achieves -- but at the cost of perpetuating, even increasing, the problem, by releasing even angrier, more resentful, more anti-social criminals, and by providing no psychological support for the victims.

Just to deal with the one man with the tattoo on his head, a confessed murderer. Nothing is mentioned about the extenuating circumstances of this murder; and I'm pretty sure it might have been brought up if there were any. Hence, I can only conclude that this murder was unjustified. I must also assume that there are loved ones left out in the cold, or, left, certainly, without a say in this video. No doubt you can find me a video where the family of victims of violent crime just LOVE this idea of babying and coddling criminals, and good on them. The ONLY people I am concerned for (and I am not concerned one whit for any cold-blooded killer or rapist in this video, thanks very much) are those people who are NOT fine with their loved one's killer or rapist being treated to a nice vacation in the lovely countryside of beautiful Norway.

You can deal with the victim's anger by punishing the perpetrator; by hurting him, or you can fix his problem and avert future misdeeds. You can assuage the victims ire with government vengeance, or you can offer government counselling.
I'm not trying to dismiss the damage done to the victims. I'm looking at what would be most socially and psychologically beneficial in the long run.

That's what bothered me. I think the fact that Norway has a recidivism rate of only 20%, as opposed to 80% in the US is fantastic, really, as that means far less OTHER people will become victims of violent crime. This is all well and good, except for the victims, and the presumably innocent people who have been permanently impacted by having a loved one removed from them; and then, having insult added to injury by knowing that the asshat who killed or raped their loved one is living at a country club not even faintly disguised as a prison!

The only "punishment" administered is their so-called lack of freedom. Ah, the poor dears can't see their friends and loved ones, whom they can know, at least, are alive and well. Poor lost lambs.

It's not designed to be punishment. It's designed to be correction.
You keep obsessing on vengeance; on vindictiveness rather than correction; on the trees rather than the forest.
The American "correctional system" isn't aimed at correcting the problem at all, just at punishing the offenders and assuaging the ire of their victims. The results, understandably, are dismal.

If the 'ONLY people you are concerned with', are the immediate victims, then you are anti-social and, in the long run, contributing to the problem.

You keep focusing on vengeance; on hurting those who hurt us. Why is attempting to fix the problem insulting to the victims? Government's job is to take the long view; to achieve maximum social benefit.
If a car's brakes fail and it mows down a group of schoolchildren, do you punish the car, or do you take it to the mechanic?

Hell, I haven't even committed a crime, but I'd love to live in that "prison". No worries about how I'm going to make a living, lots of good food, a computer, books, the whole shebang! I live in Buttfuck USA, where I will have to work until I'm into my seventees, because I have the audacity of being a low-income wage earner all my life save for a couple years in management. Not being able to escape? Who in their right mind, being in my position, would even think about escaping?

When we focus on assuaging public ire, spend billions on prisons and nothing on fixing social problems, it's no surprise when we end up with an insecure, un-prosperous society.

It reminds me of when those deep ecology guys cut a big hole in a fence where some wolves (I think they were wolves) lived, protected and fed on a very large preserve. There is a famous picture of the wolves lying right by the cut-out hole, with these looks on their faces (not literally but it was funny, seeing the deep ecology guys trying to infuse the sentiment of "Home Free" into them.) These clever wolves were basically saying, "What the fuck, are you humans out of your minds? We no longer have to hunt for our food, we have plenty of acreage to roam, and we got it good! So please, fix this hole in our fence, before some fucking BEAR crawls in!"

Maybe the ecology types were focused on the long term benefit to the ecosystem rather than the individual wolf lives. It sounds like the wolves were already broken.

Nah, while I am really cool with the low rate of repeat offenders, I am NOT down with sending killers and rapists to a country club for some R&R. It's a grave offense to the victims of their crimes. It is an affront to common decency.

In some countries contact between unmarried men and women, or homosexuality, or bared ankles, are equally an affront to common decency, and are severely punished, not for the harm they cause, but the public outrage and family shame they engender.
Will some of our 'correctional' practices be viewed as equally barbaric and equally counter-productive a century from now?

Norway would probably have a low recidivism rate even if they had prisons that bore some resemblance to prisons, because Norway, well, it ain't downtown Compton or The Bronx. And the country has nowhere near the population of the US. In fact, the entire country has half the population of New York City alone.

Norway's focus on fixing the problem rather than extracting vengeance isn't unique. Norway's not an isolated example.

I also think the ridiculous level of repeat offense in the US has many factors which have little or nothing to do with the prison system. In fact, before I continue, I know two people who claim their stay in prison, one of them for several years, was not nearly as bad as they thought it would be.

Yes, some ex-convicts make it through OK, and manage to successfully re-integrate into society, but might it not be worth the effort to try to correct the mental defects that caused the criminal activity in the first place, rather than adding to the anger, doing nothing to teach social skills, and putting barriers in place to productive re-integration into society? The system seems designed to create and perpetuate a criminal class.

 

[WAB]

Lol, I'm pretty sure he was being serious and not sarcastic.

Well, that's fine, I still had a lot to say. We can forget that it was a response to RVonse. And I do think his/her solution, if serious, is contemptible.

 

[Valjean]

The bible says an eye for an eye and the punishment should always fit the crime IMO.. So chain the convicted criminal naked and then let the victim violate him with a big black dildo penis.

I don't think you read the passage carefully. It's a repudiation of eye-for-an-eye, by Jesus himself. You've got the whole sense ass-backwards.

That would serve 3 functions:
1. Prevent recidivism due to knowing first hand what it feels like to have an unwanted cock rammed up your ass.

But would that work? Do criminals think like that?
I don't think they do a lot of planning or weighing consequences. They tend to be impulsive.

2. Save a bunch of tax money on jail cells.

That it would.

3. Give the victim a feeling of satisfaction knowing that the proper justice has been served.

By "proper justice" I assume you mean vengeance.

I know many here are atheists but you really do have to give the bible credit for wisdom in knowing the proper course of action.

Amen, brother. Jesus was all about peace, love and forgiveness, turning the other cheek returning good for evil, loving your enemies, &c -- never about vindictiveness.
To quote the passage you cited before:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

[WAB]

Of course it's geared toward an emotional response -- it's Michael Moore, for heaven's sake! He's a working class schlub aiming at working class schlubs, but his video is underlain with solid, dispassionate, empirical sociology.
The European approach to criminology is focused more on correcting the problem than on satisfying the emotional ire of the victims. It's focused on achieving results -- and it does.
The harm has already been done. Nothing will undo it. The American system aims to prevent personal vendetta with a system of government vendetta.
Our justice system aims to hurt the criminal to satisfy the anger of the victims. This it achieves -- but at the cost of perpetuating, even increasing, the problem, by releasing even angrier, more resentful, more anti-social criminals, and by providing no psychological support for the victims.

Just to deal with the one man with the tattoo on his head, a confessed murderer. Nothing is mentioned about the extenuating circumstances of this murder; and I'm pretty sure it might have been brought up if there were any. Hence, I can only conclude that this murder was unjustified. I must also assume that there are loved ones left out in the cold, or, left, certainly, without a say in this video. No doubt you can find me a video where the family of victims of violent crime just LOVE this idea of babying and coddling criminals, and good on them. The ONLY people I am concerned for (and I am not concerned one whit for any cold-blooded killer or rapist in this video, thanks very much) are those people who are NOT fine with their loved one's killer or rapist being treated to a nice vacation in the lovely countryside of beautiful Norway.

You can deal with the victim's anger by punishing the perpetrator; by hurting him, or you can fix his problem and avert future misdeeds. You can assuage the victims ire with government vengeance, or you can offer government counselling.
I'm not trying to dismiss the damage done to the victims. I'm looking at what would be most socially and psychologically beneficial in the long run.

That's what bothered me. I think the fact that Norway has a recidivism rate of only 20%, as opposed to 80% in the US is fantastic, really, as that means far less OTHER people will become victims of violent crime. This is all well and good, except for the victims, and the presumably innocent people who have been permanently impacted by having a loved one removed from them; and then, having insult added to injury by knowing that the asshat who killed or raped their loved one is living at a country club not even faintly disguised as a prison!

The only "punishment" administered is their so-called lack of freedom. Ah, the poor dears can't see their friends and loved ones, whom they can know, at least, are alive and well. Poor lost lambs.

It's not designed to be punishment. It's designed to be correction.
You keep obsessing on vengeance; on vindictiveness rather than correction; on the trees rather than the forest.
The American "correctional system" isn't aimed at correcting the problem at all, just at punishing the offenders and assuaging the ire of their victims. The results, understandably, are dismal.

If the 'ONLY people you are concerned with', are the immediate victims, then you are anti-social and, in the long run, contributing to the problem.

You keep focusing on vengeance; on hurting those who hurt us. Why is attempting to fix the problem insulting to the victims? Government's job is to take the long view; to achieve maximum social benefit.
If a car's brakes fail and it mows down a group of schoolchildren, do you punish the car, or do you take it to the mechanic?

Hell, I haven't even committed a crime, but I'd love to live in that "prison". No worries about how I'm going to make a living, lots of good food, a computer, books, the whole shebang! I live in Buttfuck USA, where I will have to work until I'm into my seventees, because I have the audacity of being a low-income wage earner all my life save for a couple years in management. Not being able to escape? Who in their right mind, being in my position, would even think about escaping?

When we focus on assuaging public ire, spend billions on prisons and nothing on fixing social problems, it's no surprise when we end up with an insecure, un-prosperous society.

It reminds me of when those deep ecology guys cut a big hole in a fence where some wolves (I think they were wolves) lived, protected and fed on a very large preserve. There is a famous picture of the wolves lying right by the cut-out hole, with these looks on their faces (not literally but it was funny, seeing the deep ecology guys trying to infuse the sentiment of "Home Free" into them.) These clever wolves were basically saying, "What the fuck, are you humans out of your minds? We no longer have to hunt for our food, we have plenty of acreage to roam, and we got it good! So please, fix this hole in our fence, before some fucking BEAR crawls in!"

Maybe the ecology types were focused on the long term benefit to the ecosystem rather than the individual wolf lives. It sounds like the wolves were already broken.

Nah, while I am really cool with the low rate of repeat offenders, I am NOT down with sending killers and rapists to a country club for some R&R. It's a grave offense to the victims of their crimes. It is an affront to common decency.

In some countries contact between unmarried men and women, or homosexuality, or bared ankles, are equally an affront to common decency, and are severely punished, not for the harm they cause, but the public outrage and family shame they engender.
Will some of our 'correctional' practices be viewed as equally barbaric and equally counter-productive a century from now?

Norway would probably have a low recidivism rate even if they had prisons that bore some resemblance to prisons, because Norway, well, it ain't downtown Compton or The Bronx. And the country has nowhere near the population of the US. In fact, the entire country has half the population of New York City alone.

Norway's focus on fixing the problem rather than extracting vengeance isn't unique. Norway's not an isolated example.

I also think the ridiculous level of repeat offense in the US has many factors which have little or nothing to do with the prison system. In fact, before I continue, I know two people who claim their stay in prison, one of them for several years, was not nearly as bad as they thought it would be.

Yes, some ex-convicts make it through OK, and manage to successfully re-integrate into society, but might it not be worth the effort to try to correct the mental defects that caused the criminal activity in the first place, rather than adding to the anger, doing nothing to teach social skills, and putting barriers in place to productive re-integration into society? The system seems designed to create and perpetuate a criminal class.

I don't terribly disagree with you through most of your responses. I believe in correction insofar as it is feasible, and low recidivism rates are obviously an excellent goal. But I do not agree with your last sentence. I think the situation sucks, but I don't believe there is a "design" to "create and perpetuate a criminal class". What possible use would that be. Economically it's a drain, and as for national morale (speaking not just for the US), having crowded prisons is a major downer.

I should say I despise classism; and there are many classists here. I have one of the major classists on ignore permanently. There simply are no classes of people: no working class, no criminal class, no lower or middle class, and no upper class: only individuals. (The classist on ignore is someone who loved to refer to the Great Unwashed, and by his own squirrelly admission, didn't think anyone without a university degree was worth talking to on such hallowed, intellectual fora as these.) By the same token I have argued that society does not form individuals or ideas; individuals and ideas form society. Usually, I get "stick" for saying such things, because it irritates the hell out of people who need to believe that individuals cannot map out their own lives and futures. TFT is chock full of those people. It's my job to get under their skin as often as possible. Everything's a damn social or cultural construct, and everyone is enslaved to these mysteriously powerful manipulators of the human intelligence and will. Humbug!

As for this revenge or vengeance thing:

To call for imprisonment of cold-blooded killers, child rapists, and violent rapists of other stripes, is not a form of revenge, nor ought one to be overly concerned if such criminals should suffer discomfort, even a damned good deal of it. The word "revenge" is used to make someone - the one on the receiving end of a criminal's action - feel bad, and that is not acceptable. The word we want is justice: hence, the Justice System. We have laws and law for a reason, and any citizen ought to know beforehand: do the crime, do the time. it's really that simple.

My fave scene from Liar Liar is when Jim Carey's secretary (Carey is a criminal defense attorney) hands him the phone and says that one of his clients needs some legal advice. Without listening to the client at all, he puts the phone's speaker to his mouth and screams, "Stop breaking the law, asshole!"

Even if you commit a victimless crime knowingly, like say, having a bag of cocaine in your desk at work, then well, if you're caught, you ought to know there will be repercussions. I say this as one who thinks all drugs should be legal. And don't go calling your possible few days in jail society's 'need for revenge'. If I were to drive drunk (which I never did - and that is not a victimless crime, as you are risking other people's lives), and I was caught and arrested, and my license removed from me, I wouldn't be so addle-brained as to consider that someone's desire for revenge; I would accept that I knew the consequences of my actions and suck it up, as any adult should.

Check out RVonse's serious or satirical answer to the problem of violent rapists (I can't determine which, though it sounds very much like sarcasm). Now that would be revenge. At least according to my understanding of the term.

Think about the way even minor infractions are treated in some real fucked up Middle Eastern countries. Women buried to their waists and stoned to death for adultery! Let's see some outcry from the liberals about that, along with criticism of American and other Western countries' handling of crime. Not instead of, but along with. In the far left liberal communities (not just here), any mention of the faults of Islam is imputed to Islamophobia. Even the ultra-rational Sam Harris has that absurd accusation hanging over his head, partly due to one knee-jerky, weepy actor who is much better looking than Sam Harris, and so must be correct in his stupid and uninformed assessment of Harris as a racist Islamophobe. When Harris spoke with my favorite political thinker, Dave Rubin, a former leftist who was swayed to a more conservative stance due to the improprieties of what he calls the Regressive Left, he suggested that this handsome but unrestrained and silly actor probably didn't even know who Harris was, and was prepared beforehand to rail against him as a racist and Islamophobe on Bill Maher's show that fateful and silly night.

*

Have you heard of Julian Hawthorne, Nathaniel Hawthorne, the great American novelist's, son? I mentioned him before. It's very interesting that the son of the man who wrote The Scarlet Letter, an immortal expose on the desire of people to punish - in this case in the age of the puritans in America - wrote a book which was a scathing criticism of the prison system, which he experienced. Below is from Wikipedia:

Fraud and imprisonment

In 1908, Hawthorne's old Harvard friend William J. Morton (a physician) invited Hawthorne to join in promoting some newly created mining companies in Ontario, Canada. Hawthorne made his writing and his family name central to the stock-selling campaigns. After complaints from shareholders, both Morton and Hawthorne were tried in New York City for mail fraud, and convicted in 1913.[11] Hawthorne was able to sell some three and a half million shares of stock in a nonexistent silver mine and served one year in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary.[12]

Upon his release from prison, he wrote The Subterranean Brotherhood (1914), a nonfiction work calling for an immediate end to incarceration of criminals.[13] Hawthorne argued, based on his own experience, that incarceration was inhumane, and should be replaced by moral suasion. Of the fraud with which he was charged he always maintained his innocence.

I downloaded the book and am finding it very interesting thus far, though there is Hawthorne's constant reminder of his wonderful upbringing by loving and supportive parents. Perhaps if we all had that, there would be a far smaller number of criminals; in fact, I have no doubt at all.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8406 - you might find the book an excellent read.

 

[WAB]

I don't think you read the passage carefully. It's a repudiation of eye-for-an-eye, by Jesus himself. You've got the whole sense ass-backwards.
But would that work? Do criminals think like that?
I don't think they do a lot of planning or weighing consequences. They tend to be impulsive.

2. Save a bunch of tax money on jail cells.

That it would.

3. Give the victim a feeling of satisfaction knowing that the proper justice has been served.

By "proper justice" I assume you mean vengeance.

I know many here are atheists but you really do have to give the bible credit for wisdom in knowing the proper course of action.

Amen, brother. Jesus was all about peace, love and forgiveness, turning the other cheek returning good for evil, loving your enemies, &c -- never about vindictiveness.
To quote the passage you cited before:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The problem with the Gospels is the huge amount of inconsistency. At one moment we're hearing nicey-nice things like the above, and at the next we hear that people are at risk for "eternal destruction" for the most minor infractions, like calling your brother, Raca, fool. Ergo, all that nicey-nice stuff is wiped out by the threat of eternal punishment in hell.

That's if you take Christ's mentioning of hell literally. I think it's absurd to consider that Jesus meant those threats of eternal damnation literally. He spoke in figurative language, used parables, stories, metaphors, to persuade people to righteous action. By hanging a real and actual threat of complete and total, not to mention eternal, punishment over someone's head, effectively erases or negates the nicey-nice stuff.

In my religious moments, which as it probably shows are coming less and less and less, I could only hold to an all-inclusive Universalism. Or perhaps some kind of Annihilation: no hell, no hellfire, no eternal punishment. The belief that Christ's talk about hell was figurative, not literal. That is the only way to hold to Christianity and NOT be a hypocrite.

And indeed, seyorni, it seems that criminals act more impusively than with forethought; with the exception of certain killers, who premeditate, plan, and carry out their crime. For this very reason, we have much harsher punishments when malice can be proven.

It should go without saying, that many rapists plan their act and carry it out without remorse, which, if proven, should be punished more severely.

This is not revenge, but justice.

********

Some may note my signature is a quote from Shelley, the great English poet who died at 29 in a shipwreck at sea - it might also be known that Shelley was known as a man who was dead-set (apparently) against punishment or retribution of any kind. He went on at length about the necessity of what Julian Hawthorne later called "Moral suasion", love, pity, and all the good stuff, which, if it works, great.

But one of Shelley's greatest works, IMO, was his play, The Cenci. In this play the heroine is Beatrice Cenci, who arranges to have her monster of a father (who raped her repeatedly) killed. She is arrested, takes her sentence of execution in stride, and dies with dignity at the chopping block.

My point is that despite what Shelley might have written about loving criminals and practicing compassion rather than retribution, one only has to read The Cenci to see his deeper feelings on the matter. Obviously, the raping and vicious monster's murder was justified.

It's all a true story, too. Tragic as can be, that a beautiful young girl was executed for arranging the murder of her monster of a father, who by the way not only raped his own daughter over and over but was guilty of many other horrible crimes, all on record.



ETA: "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is originally from the Old Testament. I think that's probably what RVonse was referring to. ?