• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Jokes about prison rape on men? Not a fan.

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
22,242
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
You're right, four is more likely.
You've got the sign wrong.

Did you mean to express disagreement with me? What you wrote doesn't conflict with what I wrote. I was pointing out that Rhea's observation doesn't support the claim she offered it in support of. Of course the family in question may well agree with Rhea's views and only support imprisonment for non-retributive reasons; but then again they may not; there's simply no way to tell from the mere fact that they don't want the killer executed. Moreover, the fact that their not wanting the killer executed is newsworthy is evidence against Rhea's contention that punishing the guilty as an end in itself isn't a goal of vast swaths of humanity.
Not really. After all, capital punishment is the ultimate form of protection of civilians.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,030
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
You're right, four is more likely.
You've got the sign wrong.
Do you also judge your students' intelligence based on whether they agree with you?

Moreover, the fact that their not wanting the killer executed is newsworthy is evidence against Rhea's contention that punishing the guilty as an end in itself isn't a goal of vast swaths of humanity.
Not really. After all, capital punishment is the ultimate form of protection of civilians.
Hmm, yes. Most of those so-common-it-isn't-news families who want their loved one's murderer executed are thinking about the potential future deaths of strangers, not the actual recent death of their loved one. Good theory.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,861
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
The Norwegian criminal justice system focuses on rehabilitation. I can't say for sure that it's far superior to American justice system because of the lack of retribution, but maybe in part. There are so many other variables...but clearly vast swaths of people find deterrence and rehabilitation the smarter option. This is not to say individual families of victims of murder do not want revenge, but not only are those people .00001% of the population, EVEN IF they were 99% of the population, it wouldn't mean retribution is best. Argumentum ad populum.

To add-- discussions about prison rape... non-violent sexual offenders have the lowest levels of recividism with attempted rehabilitation, therapy etc. Hoping that they get raped in prison as part of retribution by society would be counter-productive because it would further mess up their minds. Upon eventual release to society, they'd be an even greater risk to society.

More generically, all prison retributions are normalizing criminals operating outside the law. Societies that condone it are teaching criminals that you can get revenge just don't get caught. It's a hypocritical principle that promotes violence and doesn't work.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,547
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The Norwegian criminal justice system focuses on rehabilitation. I can't say for sure that it's far superior to American justice system because of the lack of retribution, but maybe in part. There are so many other variables...but clearly vast swaths of people find deterrence and rehabilitation the smarter option. This is not to say individual families of victims of murder do not want revenge, but not only are those people .00001% of the population, EVEN IF they were 99% of the population, it wouldn't mean retribution is best. Argumentum ad populum.

To add-- discussions about prison rape... non-violent sexual offenders have the lowest levels of recividism with attempted rehabilitation, therapy etc. Hoping that they get raped in prison as part of retribution by society would be counter-productive because it would further mess up their minds. Upon eventual release to society, they'd be an even greater risk to society.

More generically, all prison retributions are normalizing criminals operating outside the law. Societies that condone it are teaching criminals that you can get revenge just don't get caught. It's a hypocritical principle that promotes violence and doesn't work.

Norway is a unique flower. They're like Saudi Arabia. But instead of "investing" the oil money on gold taps in all their 800 rooms of their palaces, they use it for stuff like this. It's also a very small population, most of who live in geographically isolated little islands. It's super boring, it's super protestant Christian. Norway is a paternal blanket of love that swadles the entire population. You can't take anything from Norway and apply to anywhere else.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,861
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
The Norwegian criminal justice system focuses on rehabilitation. I can't say for sure that it's far superior to American justice system because of the lack of retribution, but maybe in part. There are so many other variables...but clearly vast swaths of people find deterrence and rehabilitation the smarter option. This is not to say individual families of victims of murder do not want revenge, but not only are those people .00001% of the population, EVEN IF they were 99% of the population, it wouldn't mean retribution is best. Argumentum ad populum.

To add-- discussions about prison rape... non-violent sexual offenders have the lowest levels of recividism with attempted rehabilitation, therapy etc. Hoping that they get raped in prison as part of retribution by society would be counter-productive because it would further mess up their minds. Upon eventual release to society, they'd be an even greater risk to society.

More generically, all prison retributions are normalizing criminals operating outside the law. Societies that condone it are teaching criminals that you can get revenge just don't get caught. It's a hypocritical principle that promotes violence and doesn't work.

Norway is a unique flower. They're like Saudi Arabia. But instead of "investing" the oil money on gold taps in all their 800 rooms of their palaces, they use it for stuff like this. It's also a very small population, most of who live in geographically isolated little islands. It's super boring, it's super protestant Christian. Norway is a paternal blanket of love that swadles the entire population. You can't take anything from Norway and apply to anywhere else.

Rehabilitation and deterrence is superior to retribution. Condoning prison retribution is creating a system of revenge and hypocrisy. Besides that, the U.S. could be somewhat more like Norway, but the elite are too busy teaching the population to be divisive and to scapegoat each other while they make billions.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Yes, I think a big disconnect in this discussion is exactly what is meant by retribution.

For example, say someone throws coffee on you. It sounds like you would consider yelling at that person retribution, whereas others seem to think retribution means killing or maiming them or something.

Or say, someone insults you, and you decide to shun them for some time. That would also be retribution.

I think you have to understand, "retribution" is sort of bad word for the North American left-wing, in the face of restorative, as in restorative justice versus retributive justice. Of course, I think what you are talking about is potentially in line with either.

I know it's a bad word for them. :)
But retribution depends on intent. If A mocks B in order to punish B for his unethical behavior consisting in engaging in character assassination againt A, then that is just retribution. If A kills B in order to punish B for his unethical behavior consisting raping and murdering A's daughter, then that is just retribution (I'm always assuming evidence beyond a reasonable doubt). It might be unethical or not, depending on the circumstances (e.g., was there a legal system that could have realistically handled the retribution?), but whether it is retribution depends on the intent to do something bad to someone for what they did, not on its intensity.

As for my position, I actually support retributive not "restorative justice", in general. Of course, I can think of hypothetical scenarios in which the former would lead to worse outcomes (due to corruption, unjust laws and/or applications of them, etc.), so I'm not saying I would be in favor of retributive justice under any circumstances. But at least in principle, as long as there are sufficient guarantees that it is in fact a just system (not perfect, but generally), among other things. And when the retributive system is unjust and inflicts punishment that are not deserved, then I would in favor of reforming it, but not to replace with a non-retributive system, but rather, with a retributive system that is just. Of course, if that is not an available option, then I would have to choose between different sorts of injustice: either people committing serious crimes and never getting punished by the state in retribution, or innocent people being unjustly punished on a regular basis. I would take the former all other things equal, but I consider that the lesser of two evils, not a good system.


That does not mean I oppose compensation, of course, but I see that as a very different matter. For example, A and B engage in celebratory gunfire with the same weapon in a populated area, with the same information about population density, potential effects of bullets, etc. A's bullets land harmlessly. One of B's bullets hits C and sends her to the hospital. I think A and B deserve equal punishment, but B also owes C compensation (though B might not have the money to pay it but that's another matter), but that is a separate matter from that of the punishment they deserve. The compensation is not a punishment or part of it.
 
Last edited:

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,547
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The Norwegian criminal justice system focuses on rehabilitation. I can't say for sure that it's far superior to American justice system because of the lack of retribution, but maybe in part. There are so many other variables...but clearly vast swaths of people find deterrence and rehabilitation the smarter option. This is not to say individual families of victims of murder do not want revenge, but not only are those people .00001% of the population, EVEN IF they were 99% of the population, it wouldn't mean retribution is best. Argumentum ad populum.

To add-- discussions about prison rape... non-violent sexual offenders have the lowest levels of recividism with attempted rehabilitation, therapy etc. Hoping that they get raped in prison as part of retribution by society would be counter-productive because it would further mess up their minds. Upon eventual release to society, they'd be an even greater risk to society.

More generically, all prison retributions are normalizing criminals operating outside the law. Societies that condone it are teaching criminals that you can get revenge just don't get caught. It's a hypocritical principle that promotes violence and doesn't work.

Norway is a unique flower. They're like Saudi Arabia. But instead of "investing" the oil money on gold taps in all their 800 rooms of their palaces, they use it for stuff like this. It's also a very small population, most of who live in geographically isolated little islands. It's super boring, it's super protestant Christian. Norway is a paternal blanket of love that swadles the entire population. You can't take anything from Norway and apply to anywhere else.

Rehabilitation and deterrence is superior to retribution. Condoning prison retribution is creating a system of revenge and hypocrisy. Besides that, the U.S. could be somewhat more like Norway, but the elite are too busy teaching the population to be divisive and to scapegoat each other while they make billions.

Social policy isn't a one-size fits all situation. Some things work well in some places and not in other places. In Norway everybody, in one way or another, works for Statoil. It gives the government pretty unique tools with which to control the population. USA just don't have these. In USA you can just go to another state and set up a new life. Or go to Mexico. Canada. It's a colonial world well adapted and well suited for a highly mobile population. Which creates both strengths and vulnerabilities.

In Norway the highest status is to be normal and be like everybody else. In USA people look up to extraordinary people. Getting rich from crime has a glamour in USA that it just doesn't have in Norway. No Norwegian woman is going to be impressed by your money. So that criminal incentive doesn't exist. If you want to get laid in Norway have a washboard stomach and show up on time to dates. You don't even need to pay for her dinner.

The cultural differences between the countries is too great for either to be able to learn anything from eachother regarding the criminal justice system IMHO. The two countries couldn't be more different.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
ruby sparks said:
Ok, perhaps others here have views that are quite anti-retribution. I'm not sure they actually extend to saying offenders do not deserve punishment (I'd be surprised if they do), but in any case I'm not Rhea, Jarhyn, or a hypothetical woke person who has those views.
I know that you are not one of them (I do not know what your position is). But in my reply to you (the one that prompted your question), I said that the central issues is that "they" are saying or implying that they do not deserve the punishment in the first place, and that tburden is on "them". I wasn't including you; that is why I did not say "you" are saying or implying, etc., or that the burden is on "you".

That aside, I am surprised that you would be surprised if they believed that. The quotes I provided seem very clear to me. For example, this post by Rhea. She says (bold added this time):
Rhea said:
I don’t believe in punishment. I don’t believe that anyone ever “deserves” it. It doesn’t work and it makes the punisher into the worst kind of hypocrite: I’m going to hurt you because you hurt someone. We don’t hurt people! Now I’ll show you hurt!” Nope, no punishment from me. Rehab, yes. Education, yes. Separation if no rehab is possible. But not punishment, not ever.
She has made it absolutely clear: " I don't believe that anyone ever "deserves" " punishment, and she gives an argument trying to back up her belief.

While Jarhyn used different words, they do seem pretty clear as well, even if slightly less explicit. I would recommend going through his posting history if you want to have more info about his views, but at least as far as I can tell based on reading many of his posts (and see also the example in my previous post), he believes that no one deserves punishment, and argues for that.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
ruby sparks said:
Thank you. So it effectively has the equivalent of or something very similar to an ought in it, in that it declares something is immoral as a premise.
Yes, my point exactly. It's not that you can't derive 'ought' from 'is'. Rather, you can't (deductively) derive moral conclusions from premises not involving moral terms. But for that matter, you can't derive color conclusions from premises without color terms, and so on.


ruby sparks said:
It's essentially getting an ought from an is, which is at least questionable.
First, again it is okay to get an ought from an is in some cases (see my example above).
Second, if you say it is getting moral conclusions from non-moral premises, deductively, I am not doing that.
Third, if you say it is questionable to make moral assessments using non-moral information as part of the evidence, let us take a look.

Suppose one of my opponents makes a moral assessment. They claim or imply, for example, that to mete out retribution on a person for what they did is morally wrong. What do they base that assessment on? If it's non-moral information, is that questionable? If it's moral premises, then on what did they base their moral premises in the first place?

Here's the problem: either it is always questionable for anyone to make moral assessments, or it is not. If the former, why? If the latter, then those assessments cannot all be based on moral premises, because then the question is: what about those premises?

Why would you say that what I'm doing is questionable because of some 'ought'-'is' thing, but you do not say the same about the moral assessments of my opponents? What is the difference?

My position is this: it is both normal and generally proper to use one's own moral sense to make moral assessments, using information about different situations, behaviors, etc. It is also proper to use empirical information about what the human moral sense usually does, in order to make probabilistic assessments about moral matters - though of course, the human moral sense is fallible, but for that matter, we could do the same for color even though our color vision is fallible, etc.


ruby sparks said:
I don't know the answer to that.
But remember that you said "naturalistic fallacy" about what I was doing, and then went on to say that you "...can't say as I've seen anything much wrong with..." Jarhyn's posts. But why the difference? He is making moral judgments too. Sure, he is making all sorts of errors too, and that leads him to making false moral judgments, so there is a clear difference. But that is not my question here since you do not see that difference. My question here is: Why do you not think that he is doing something equally questionable?
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Yes, I think a big disconnect in this discussion is exactly what is meant by retribution.

For example, say someone throws coffee on you. It sounds like you would consider yelling at that person retribution, whereas others seem to think retribution means killing or maiming them or something.

Or say, someone insults you, and you decide to shun them for some time. That would also be retribution.

I think you have to understand, "retribution" is sort of bad word for the North American left-wing, in the face of restorative, as in restorative justice versus retributive justice. Of course, I think what you are talking about is potentially in line with either.

In my previous experience, there is a little bit more involved in AM's views than seems at first. I have found him to be vague and possibly even avoiding coming straight out with some of the real world implications at times.

I find A.M. is one of the most meticulous people on this board about being precise in his language and going out of his way to not equivocate. Almost tedious, in fact. But of course, English is not his first language, I'm pretty sure, so maybe things get lost in translation.

Thanks, and sometimes that happens, but not this one. I may have been unclear a couple of times, but I absolutely clarified it repeatedly, and in excruciating detail - only to be ignored repeatedly. The error is not on my side. But you don't need to take my word for it. If you want to assess the matter for yourself, I would recommend the exchange between ruby sparks and me in the following thread:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?20677-FORGIVENESS


I think that's the main one, though if you're interested, there are two more as far as I remember:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?20647-RETRIBUTIVISM

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?19934-The-Great-Contradiction
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
"I didn't see that coming." -- "that" is in reference to a thing, such as words written, not a person.

Yes, that is obvious. And it was using as a means of attacking me, implying that what I had done was ridiculous, absurd, bad, or something like that. Do you actually not see the animosity in these threads, all over the place? People are attacking each other - not physically attacking, of course.

In this thread, that was a very mild attack, comparatively speaking. A much bigger one was the implication that it was reasonable to ask where I lived in order to avoid the area to remain safe.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
My question here is: Why do you not think that he is doing something equally questionable?

I did not see Jarhyn using the naturalistic fallacy.

Other than that, why am I not disagreeing with Jarhyn generally? I think Jarhyn and I would disagree quite a bit if we were debating, and often do.

But why am I debating with you here rather than with Jarhyn? I'm not exactly sure. I certainly can't engage with everyone for lack of time. I think my preference has to do with having tried to discuss it with you at great length in the past and having not warmed to your underlying retributive views, or perhaps it's just the feeling that you are being dogmatic about them. Maybe I think there is too much retribution in the world, and so I am more tolerant of those who aspire to there being less.

Regarding Rhea, it seems to me that when she says she herself believes that no one deserves punishment, she is being far less adamant than you when you say otherwise. In her case it seems more of a personal opinion or preference than an attempted watertight case for moral universalism or moral realism.
 
Last edited:

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
My question here is: Why do you not think that he is doing something equally questionable?

I did not see Jarhyn using the naturalistic fallacy.

Let me explain the problem again: you think what I'm doing is questionable because it allegedly derives moral assessments from non-moral information, at least in part. Is that not the case? What you seem to call the "naturalistic fallacy" (though the naturalistic fallacy, as I explained, is neither that nor a fallacy).

But then, how is Jarhyn not doing the same? Furthermore, how is not everyone who ever makes a moral assessment not doing the same?
Imagine someone makes a moral assessment by logically deriving it from premises that are also (at least some of them) moral assessments. Then, where do they derive the premises from? From other moral premises? Then how about those ones? As they do not make infinitely many assessments, even if there were (which they are not realistically) deriving every other moral assessment from some starting point moral premises, they would have at the base of all of their moral assessments some moral assessments (the premises) that they did not derive from moral premises. Then, where did they come from?

Either from non-moral ones (then, what you call the "naturalistic fallacy"), or else they just made an intuitive moral assessment using their own moral sense. But then they are using information about what their moral sense says to make moral assessments. How is that not what you call the "naturalistic fallacy", if making moral assessments on the basis of what my moral sense says, or on the basis of what the moral sense of the vast majority of humans says is the "naturalistic fallacy"?



Do you see the problem?

If I reckon that exacting retribution on a rapist in order to punish him is just, using as evidence that my moral sense yields that verdict, then it's objectionable by your claims, allegedly due to the 'naturalistic fallacy'.
If I reckon that exacting retribution on a rapist in order to punish him is just, using as evidence that the moral sense of nearly all humans yields that verdict, then it's objectionable by your claims, allegedly due to the 'naturalistic fallacy'.
If I reckon that exacting retribution on a rapist in order to punish him is just, using as evidence that the moral sense of nearly all humans yields that verdict and my own moral sense yields that verdict, then it's objectionable by your claims, allegedly due to the 'naturalistic fallacy'.
But if Jarhyn reckons that something is morally wrong, or morally right, or good, or bad, or whatever moral assessment, either using as evidence that his moral sense says so, or just someone else says so, or just because something else that is also not a moral statement, then it's not objectionable?
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
But if Jarhyn reckons that something is morally wrong, or morally right, or good, or bad, or whatever moral assessment, either using as evidence that his moral sense says so, or just someone else says so, or just because something else that is also not a moral statement, then it's not objectionable?

Ok, but still I don't see Jarhyn advancing his case in quite the way you do though. Your underlying position seems to me (based on previous discussions) to involve making an attempted argument for moral universalism and moral realism, in particular regarding your claims about retribution specifically. I think that's a step too far and imo dogmatic, inflexible and simplistic (possibly even unhelpful in a world where there is arguably too much focus on retribution and punishment at the expense of alternatives). So in other words, yes, perhaps both you and Jarhyn are using the is-ness (existence) of intuitions to get to oughts, but Jarhyn does not seem to me to be making the same sort of fundamental or universal claims about intuitions that you are. As to Rhea, she seems to be more expressing an opinion or a preference (or a personal belief or aspiration) than asserting a universal moral fact, as you do, very strongly, when we get right down to it.
 
Last edited:

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,547
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
But instead of "investing" the oil money on gold taps in all their 800 rooms of their palaces, they use it for stuff like this.

I read that Norway had moved towards a more restorative/rehabilitative justice system before it profited from oil.

Yes, they did it the same time everybody else in the west did, in the 1960'ies. USA was one of those. It went badly in most places. USA for example. It went well in Norway. We've already run the comparative experiment. In USA it lead to greatly increased crime and a rapidly expanding prison population. Which is why the experiment was abandoned.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,547
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Yes, they did it the same time everybody else in the west did, in the 1960'ies.

Ok so before the oil profits, unlike what you said.

In USA it lead to greatly increased crime and a rapidly expanding prison population.

I am not sure if it was a decreased focus on punishment that led to the inflated prison population in the US.

For example:

"From the 1940s onward, public officials and policy makers at all levels of government—from federal to state to local—increasingly sought changes in judicial, policing, and prosecutorial behavior and in criminal justice policy and legislation. These changes ultimately resulted in major increases in the government’s capacity to pursue and punish lawbreakers and, beginning in the 1970s, in an escalation of sanctions for a wide range of crimes. Furthermore, criminal justice became a persistent rather than an intermittent issue in U.S. politics. To a degree unparalleled in U.S. history, politicians and public officials beginning in the 1960s regularly deployed criminal justice legislation and policies for expressive political purposes as they made “street crime”—both real and imagined—a major national, state, and local issue".

The Underlying Causes of Rising Incarceration: Crime, Politics, and Social Change
https://www.nap.edu/read/18613/chapter/6
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
22,242
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Do you also judge your students' intelligence based on whether they agree with you?
I don't judge intelligence - I try to assess their level of learning.

Hmm, yes. Most of those so-common-it-isn't-news families who want their loved one's murderer executed are thinking about the potential future deaths of strangers, not the actual recent death of their loved one. Good theory.
It is not a theory - dead people do not commit crimes after they are dead. My point is that it is just as possible that you have no clue what the families are thinking.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,632
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Do you also judge your students' intelligence based on whether they agree with you?
I don't judge intelligence - I try to assess their level of learning.

Hmm, yes. Most of those so-common-it-isn't-news families who want their loved one's murderer executed are thinking about the potential future deaths of strangers, not the actual recent death of their loved one. Good theory.
It is not a theory - dead people do not commit crimes after they are dead. My point is that it is just as possible that you have no clue what the families are thinking.

Victim's family members think different things and have different ideas about what justice for their family member looks like. Some want the harshest sentence possible, including the death penalty. Some abhor the death penalty and do not wish to see it imposed. It's not always easily predictable who feels what. I'm not entirely certain how much what the victim's family wants, in terms of sentencing, should have on sentencing.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,547
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Yes, they did it the same time everybody else in the west did, in the 1960'ies.

Ok so before the oil profits, unlike what you said.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. No, not before the oil profits. The oil profits allowed the Norwegian government to keep an expensive programme going into our current day. Without the oil money it would most likely have been scrapped, or made into a cheaper, and less effective model. Sweden is still going strong with the same policies, unsuccessfully, but that doesn't seem to deter them. Sweden does not have the oil money, so can't afford quite the same policies. It's a policy with cut corners = not working.

You are talking about the Norwegian prison model as if it hasn't been tried and tested around the world.

In USA it lead to greatly increased crime and a rapidly expanding prison population.

I am not sure if it was a decreased focus on punishment that led to the inflated prison population in the US.

For example:

"From the 1940s onward, public officials and policy makers at all levels of government—from federal to state to local—increasingly sought changes in judicial, policing, and prosecutorial behavior and in criminal justice policy and legislation. These changes ultimately resulted in major increases in the government’s capacity to pursue and punish lawbreakers and, beginning in the 1970s, in an escalation of sanctions for a wide range of crimes. Furthermore, criminal justice became a persistent rather than an intermittent issue in U.S. politics. To a degree unparalleled in U.S. history, politicians and public officials beginning in the 1960s regularly deployed criminal justice legislation and policies for expressive political purposes as they made “street crime”—both real and imagined—a major national, state, and local issue".

The Underlying Causes of Rising Incarceration: Crime, Politics, and Social Change
https://www.nap.edu/read/18613/chapter/6

Which was my original point in my first reply. The Norwegian and American contexts are wildly different. USA has a different society, different problems, different incentives and a much larger population.

edit: the Norwegian (and Swedish) model can only work in a society with lots of welfare. Norway has the benefit of a large well functioning government owned company where they can put newly released criminals and have them get jobs immediately. Sweden can't do that. So in Sweden the same policies just lead to people living off welfare year in and year out. Or after release they move to Berlin or Amsterdam for work. Which is very common.

My point is that the prison system works in concert with policies in the rest of society. Policies that USA isn't anywhere near ready to impliment.
 
Last edited:

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,861
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
"I didn't see that coming." -- "that" is in reference to a thing, such as words written, not a person.

Yes, that is obvious. And it was using as a means of attacking me, implying that what I had done was ridiculous, absurd, bad, or something like that. Do you actually not see the animosity in these threads, all over the place? People are attacking each other - not physically attacking, of course.

In this thread, that was a very mild attack, comparatively speaking. A much bigger one was the implication that it was reasonable to ask where I lived in order to avoid the area to remain safe.

Smart people sometimes do stupid things. Being surprised by the thing they did is not necessarily an attack on the smart person. In fact, it's fairly consistent with how we are to behave here--address the argument, not the person. For example, here I am addressing the argument. It is not an attack on you. There is no implication you are stupid just because I am writing you are wrong.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Which was my original point in my first reply.

But we were not doing your original point from your first reply. We were doing what you said about the introduction of similar policies to those introduced in Norway, the comparative experiment you referred to, except that you said it failed in the USA because the policies led to greatly increased crime and a rapidly expanding prison population.
 
Last edited:

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,861
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
I agree that there are differences between Norway and the U.S. And it's even possible that some of those differences make it impossible to implement Norway in the U.S. However, none of that detracts from my core argument. Across the board, any country, ... rehabilitation afforded to criminals and deterrence as a goal reduces crime. Norway may be some kind of unachievable utopia but there's a long continuum of possiblilities between the current U.S. criminal justice system and Norway...a million different improvements. In any case, we're specifically talking about advocacy of prison rape on sex offenders.

That itself is illegal. That creates even more sex offender rapists. The victims and victimizers may start to normalize it. And if ordinary citizens are advocating it, they participate in a culture where raping for revenge is condoned. The criminals who get out of prison are all worse off mentally. They are told by a contingent of society to obey the law and by another that one can make personal exceptions to the law by reasoning it out, but their abilities to reason these things will be distorted by normalized traumas.

Now could there be some weird exceptions to these general rules where prison rape is a good thing? I suppose it's possible in some system of anarchy where people are arrested randomly and laws are dysfunctional...but then they would still become worse persons...even in that situation, wouldn't just beating the crap out of them be preferred?

Wow. I must finally say prison rape as a form of retribution being good has got to be the second weirdest thing I have ever read in this forum. The weirdest was a thread I started about molesting kittens but it was consensual and not something I seriously advocated for--I was making a point. In the case of this thread, some people are so given to liking the debate for debate's sake and to read their own arguments, they've abandoned everything else. I mean, we're talking about prison rape here!
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
"I didn't see that coming." -- "that" is in reference to a thing, such as words written, not a person.

Yes, that is obvious. And it was using as a means of attacking me, implying that what I had done was ridiculous, absurd, bad, or something like that. Do you actually not see the animosity in these threads, all over the place? People are attacking each other - not physically attacking, of course.

In this thread, that was a very mild attack, comparatively speaking. A much bigger one was the implication that it was reasonable to ask where I lived in order to avoid the area to remain safe.

Smart people sometimes do stupid things. Being surprised by the thing they did is not necessarily an attack on the smart person. In fact, it's fairly consistent with how we are to behave here--address the argument, not the person. For example, here I am addressing the argument. It is not an attack on you. There is no implication you are stupid just because I am writing you are wrong.

No, read the post. She was surprised by something she falsely and without good reason attributed to me. But look at both the tone and the words. Obviously it's an attack. And again, a mild one at that, compared to her other attack, namely the implication that it was reasonable to ask where I lived in order to avoid the area to remain safe (" Which, #1, can you tell me where you live so that I can never stumble across you?", how would that not be an attack?
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
ruby sparks said:
Ok, but still I don't see Jarhyn advancing his case in quite the way you do though.
Of course not. As I pointed out, he makes plenty of errors that I don't make, he makes claims that fly on the face of ordinary human moral intuitions, raises accusations not remotely based on the available evidence, etc, whereas he fails to make the good points I make.

But that is not the point I was making in this part of my post. In fact, my point wes not about Jarhyn in particular. He was an example, because you do not raise the same charge against him. My point is that the objection you make against my moral assessments, if successful, would work against any moral assessments made by any humans, under any circumstances. Why? For the same reason it applies to Jarhyn. But let me explain it again:


Suppose A says B behaved immorally when he did X.
1. If A uses her own moral sense to make the assessment, then her assessment falls within the scope of your 'naturalistic fallacy', because it does not logically follow from the fact that A's moral sense gives the verdict 'B's doing X was immoral', that B's doing X was immoral.
2. If A uses the moral sense of other humans, then the same holds.
3. If A derives her judgment from some moral premises P1, ...Pn , and some other premises Q, then the question is: How does A derive P1,..Pn.


As there is no infinite regress in A's argumentation or thought (she is human), then at some point A is basing her moral assessments on something that is not a moral premise. That falls afoul of your 'naturalistic fallacy', and taints the rest of the conclusions as they are based on an unwarranted starting point.

In other words, your standard , if correct, hits all human morality. If you prefer not to do that, then you would have to withdraw it and choose another way of criticizing my position (or stop criticizing it).
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
22,242
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Smart people sometimes do stupid things. Being surprised by the thing they did is not necessarily an attack on the smart person. In fact, it's fairly consistent with how we are to behave here--address the argument, not the person. For example, here I am addressing the argument. It is not an attack on you. There is no implication you are stupid just because I am writing you are wrong.

No, read the post. She was surprised by something she falsely and without good reason attributed to me. But look at both the tone and the words. Obviously it's an attack. And again, a mild one at that, compared to her other attack, namely the implication that it was reasonable to ask where I lived in order to avoid the area to remain safe (" Which, #1, can you tell me where you live so that I can never stumble across you?", how would that not be an attack?
Easily, avoidance of an accident that might harm you or her or both of you comes to mind as not an attack.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Wow. I must finally say prison rape as a form of retribution being good has got to be the second weirdest thing I have ever read in this forum.

I don't think I've seen anyone here saying that though? It wouldn't be the first thing I've missed, to be fair.
You did not miss anything in this case. No one here said or implied that.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Smart people sometimes do stupid things. Being surprised by the thing they did is not necessarily an attack on the smart person. In fact, it's fairly consistent with how we are to behave here--address the argument, not the person. For example, here I am addressing the argument. It is not an attack on you. There is no implication you are stupid just because I am writing you are wrong.

No, read the post. She was surprised by something she falsely and without good reason attributed to me. But look at both the tone and the words. Obviously it's an attack. And again, a mild one at that, compared to her other attack, namely the implication that it was reasonable to ask where I lived in order to avoid the area to remain safe (" Which, #1, can you tell me where you live so that I can never stumble across you?", how would that not be an attack?
Easily, avoidance of an accident that might harm you or her or both of you comes to mind as not an attack.

Again, read the post. That has nothing to do with what she said. Even when asked, "Nay, it is merely caution. You have stated that you think it is right to inflict punishment when you think people have wronged you. I feel it’s prudent to stay away from people who think like that."

Seriously, you are not making sense.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
22,242
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Easily, avoidance of an accident that might harm you or her or both of you comes to mind as not an attack.

Again, read the post. That has nothing to do with what she said. Even when asked, "Nay, it is merely caution. You have stated that you think it is right to inflict punishment when you think people have wronged you. I feel it’s prudent to stay away from people who think like that."

Seriously, you are not making sense.
You asked how a particular statement " can you tell me where you live so that I can never stumble across you?" could not be an attack. I showed how it could not be an attack.

Whether Rhea meant it as an attack - only she knows for sure. It is clear you feel that it was an attack, even though it is possible it was not. Your response indicates a problem with basic reasoning.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Easily, avoidance of an accident that might harm you or her or both of you comes to mind as not an attack.

Again, read the post. That has nothing to do with what she said. Even when asked, "Nay, it is merely caution. You have stated that you think it is right to inflict punishment when you think people have wronged you. I feel it’s prudent to stay away from people who think like that."

Seriously, you are not making sense.
You asked how a particular statement " can you tell me where you live so that I can never stumble across you?" could not be an attack. I showed how it could not be an attack.

Whether Rhea meant it as an attack - only she knows for sure. It is clear you feel that it was an attack, even though it is possible it was not. Your response indicates a problem with basic reasoning.

That particular statement made in the thread, of course. Not that particular statement made by any person under any circumstances. That would not be relevant.

Obviously, my assessment does not indicate any problems with basic reasoning.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
22,242
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
You asked how a particular statement " can you tell me where you live so that I can never stumble across you?" could not be an attack. I showed how it could not be an attack.

Whether Rhea meant it as an attack - only she knows for sure. It is clear you feel that it was an attack, even though it is possible it was not. Your response indicates a problem with basic reasoning.

That particular statement made in the thread, of course. Not that particular statement made by any person under any circumstances. That would not be relevant.

Obviously, my assessment does not indicate any problems with basic reasoning.
This response does not. Your previous one did. Now that is settled, perhaps you are willing deal with the actual content of the OP instead of your pique.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,861
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Wow. I must finally say prison rape as a form of retribution being good has got to be the second weirdest thing I have ever read in this forum.

I don't think I've seen anyone here saying that though? It wouldn't be the first thing I've missed, to be fair.

Why even bring retribution up at all?

Let's agree that some people making jokes about it, actually want it to happen for retribution purposes.

So why are arguments for prison murder, prison assaults, and other prison violence so different than prison rape?

I think it's different but the arguments are the same...prison rape is so unpopular no one here is going to try to defend it, but it's implicitly being defended by trying to defend prison violence.

Here is what I wrote before:
Don2 said:
In any case, we're specifically talking about advocacy of prison rape on sex offenders.

That itself is illegal. That creates even more sex offender rapists. The victims and victimizers may start to normalize it. And if ordinary citizens are advocating it, they participate in a culture where raping for revenge is condoned. The criminals who get out of prison are all worse off mentally. They are told by a contingent of society to obey the law and by another that one can make personal exceptions to the law by reasoning it out, but their abilities to reason these things will be distorted by normalized traumas.

I am going to stand by this. I will go one step further and stand by its more generic form:
In any case, we're specifically talking about advocacy of prison X on criminals where X is illegal retribution.

That itself is illegal. That creates even more habitual criminals. The victims and victimizers may start to normalize illegal violence. And if ordinary citizens are advocating it, they participate in a culture where assaulting for revenge is condoned. The criminals who get out of prison are all worse off mentally. They are told by a contingent of society to obey the law and by another that one can make personal exceptions to the law by reasoning it out, but their abilities to reason these things will be distorted by normalized traumas.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
...prison rape is so unpopular no one here is going to try to defend it, but it's implicitly being defended by trying to defend prison violence.

No, I don't think any of those are being defended here, implicitly or otherwise. A reasonable Retributivist might say they are not just retribution, that they are unjust retribution. They might say, for example, that being put in prison is just retribution enough. Now, if the retributivist was deriving the distinctions involved from human retributive intuitions and also declaring them universal moral facts on that basis, I might disagree with them quite a lot. Which is what I am doing with Angra (again).
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
In other words, your standard , if correct, hits all human morality. If you prefer not to do that, then you would have to withdraw it and choose another way of criticizing my position (or stop criticizing it).

I disagree and I have already explained my specific reasons to you, which include accepting that yes, it would hit all human morality. But it would not necessarily hit all versions in the same way or to the same extent. It would hit a strong, dogmatic position more than it would hit a weak, flexible one. I disagree with yours in particular for specific reasons given. As far as I know, no one else here is making the strong (and imo simplistic) claims you do about universal, realist, moral facts being derivable from human retributive intuitions.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,861
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
...prison rape is so unpopular no one here is going to try to defend it, but it's implicitly being defended by trying to defend prison violence.

No, I don't think any of those are being defended here, implicitly or otherwise.

I do. You can't get away from it if you condone prison violence. Rape is violence. There is nothing special about sex except that it is treated specially culturally, more taboo, and likewise homophobia makes men raping men an extremely unpopular thing. But again, the logical arguments in favor of prison violence are exactly the same. So if one condones prison violence, there is an implicit condoning of prison rape. It is not something coming out of someone's mouths, but it is implied by the arguments.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
But again, the logical arguments in favor of prison violence are exactly the same. So if one condones prison violence, there is an implicit condoning of prison rape. It is not something coming out of someone's mouths, but it is implied by the arguments.

I definitely don't think it is necessarily implied by the arguments at all. Though I suppose Angra comes closest when he says beatings may be appropriate in certain cases.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,600
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
But again, the logical arguments in favor of prison violence are exactly the same. So if one condones prison violence, there is an implicit condoning of prison rape. It is not something coming out of someone's mouths, but it is implied by the arguments.

I definitely don't think it is necessarily implied by the arguments at all. Though I suppose Angra comes closest when he says beatings may be appropriate in certain cases.

They're different extents of violation of the same principle, that it's OK to go ham on someone once they've been bad (which is itself a very muddy concept in most ethical frameworks).

My thought is that it is absolutely NOT ok to go ham on someone once they've been bad. It's one of the most basic tests of an ethical framework: does it permit doing unto others that which you would not have done into you?

Like, seriously, I don't ever want to be "punished" when there is ANY other feasible response. It damages me. It damages my resolve in life. It makes me want to reflect what was done to me onto the person that did it. None of these things are OK.

Any action which prevents someone from doing some thing that they want to do, short of what is absolutely necessary preventing them from doing things that prevent others from doing likewise, is to be avoided.

I mean, speaking in terms of a specific goal for the derivation of general "oughts" is a losing battle. There is no specific goal. There is the possibility, though, of discussing a meta-goal to derive general oughts.

To me, that goal is "to have all that is necessary to do X" where X does not deprived anyone else of the same. Of course we live in a probabilistic universe, and in a universe where there are zero-sum situations, so we need to account for these two things: by having a common agreement and expectation of what risks are to be accepted, and a mechanism to determine disposition of limited resources.

I can easily identify that if I wish to have my meta-goal stay as intact as possible, I must respect the meta-goals of others as much as possible. Punishment for the sake of vengeance rather than only as a last resort in behavior modification fits right into "unnecessary", almost trivially so.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
But again, the logical arguments in favor of prison violence are exactly the same. So if one condones prison violence, there is an implicit condoning of prison rape. It is not something coming out of someone's mouths, but it is implied by the arguments.

I definitely don't think it is necessarily implied by the arguments at all. Though I suppose Angra comes closest when he says beatings may be appropriate in certain cases.

They're different extents of violation of the same principle, that it's OK to go ham on someone once they've been bad (which is itself a very muddy concept in most ethical frameworks).

My thought is that it is absolutely NOT ok to go ham on someone once they've been bad. It's one of the most basic tests of an ethical framework: does it permit doing unto others that which you would not have done into you?

Like, seriously, I don't ever want to be "punished" when there is ANY other feasible response. It damages me. It damages my resolve in life. It makes me want to reflect what was done to me onto the person that did it. None of these things are OK.

Any action which prevents someone from doing some thing that they want to do, short of what is absolutely necessary preventing them from doing things that prevent others from doing likewise, is to be avoided.

I mean, speaking in terms of a specific goal for the derivation of general "oughts" is a losing battle. There is no specific goal. There is the possibility, though, of discussing a meta-goal to derive general oughts.

To me, that goal is "to have all that is necessary to do X" where X does not deprived anyone else of the same. Of course we live in a probabilistic universe, and in a universe where there are zero-sum situations, so we need to account for these two things: by having a common agreement and expectation of what risks are to be accepted, and a mechanism to determine disposition of limited resources.

I can easily identify that if I wish to have my meta-goal stay as intact as possible, I must respect the meta-goals of others as much as possible. Punishment for the sake of vengeance rather than only as a last resort in behavior modification fits right into "unnecessary", almost trivially so.

Well yes, the Golden Rule, or some version of it, seems like quite a good go-to when looking for something fairly reliable, something a bit like an axiom or a bedrock principle, on which to plant a moral foundation, not least because it has cropped up, I believe, in every human society, ever. Another is forgiveness, which is also very common indeed, if situational. And I don't think Angra's basis is a bad one either. In fact in some ways it's a good one, imo, albeit a bit Old Testament. But to me it's not the only possible one. I think humans are too complicated, too capricious, too conflicted and contradictory for there to be a single guiding principle, or such things as independent, universal moral facts. So to some extent I think one is kidding oneself if one even thinks there is moral bedrock down there to find. Maybe there are some quite firm strata under here, or some gritty subsoil conditions under there, on which to erect something like reasonably stable, agreed (key word) moralities and the rules which go along with them, at least for a while, until the ground conditions shift.

Try this. Imagine what I call 'The Gore Vidal scenario' where there is only one piece of bread (hypothetically it represents only enough food to ensure one person's survival at time t). All other things being equal (eg we both want to survive, we both have dependent offspring, etc) who gets it, you or me?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,600
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
They're different extents of violation of the same principle, that it's OK to go ham on someone once they've been bad (which is itself a very muddy concept in most ethical frameworks).

My thought is that it is absolutely NOT ok to go ham on someone once they've been bad. It's one of the most basic tests of an ethical framework: does it permit doing unto others that which you would not have done into you?

Like, seriously, I don't ever want to be "punished" when there is ANY other feasible response. It damages me. It damages my resolve in life. It makes me want to reflect what was done to me onto the person that did it. None of these things are OK.

Any action which prevents someone from doing some thing that they want to do, short of what is absolutely necessary preventing them from doing things that prevent others from doing likewise, is to be avoided.

I mean, speaking in terms of a specific goal for the derivation of general "oughts" is a losing battle. There is no specific goal. There is the possibility, though, of discussing a meta-goal to derive general oughts.

To me, that goal is "to have all that is necessary to do X" where X does not deprived anyone else of the same. Of course we live in a probabilistic universe, and in a universe where there are zero-sum situations, so we need to account for these two things: by having a common agreement and expectation of what risks are to be accepted, and a mechanism to determine disposition of limited resources.

I can easily identify that if I wish to have my meta-goal stay as intact as possible, I must respect the meta-goals of others as much as possible. Punishment for the sake of vengeance rather than only as a last resort in behavior modification fits right into "unnecessary", almost trivially so.

Well yes, the Golden Rule, or some version of it, seems like quite a good go-to when looking for something fairly reliable, something a bit like an axiom or a bedrock principle, on which to plant a moral foundation, not least because it has cropped up, I believe, in every human society, ever. Another is forgiveness, which is also very common indeed, if situational. And I don't think Angra's basis is a bad one either. In fact in some ways it's a good one, imo, albeit a bit Old Testament. But to me it's not the only possible one. I think humans are too complicated, too capricious, too conflicted and contradictory for there to be a single guiding principle, or such things as independent, universal moral facts. So to some extent I think one is kidding oneself if one even thinks there is moral bedrock down there to find. Maybe there are some quite firm strata under here, or some gritty subsoil conditions under there, on which to erect something like reasonably stable, agreed (key word) moralities and the rules which go along with them, at least for a while, until the ground conditions shift.

Try this. Imagine what I call 'The Gore Vidal scenario' where there is only one piece of bread (hypothetically it represents only enough food to ensure one person's survival at time t). All other things being equal (eg we both want to survive, we both have dependent offspring, etc) who gets it, you or me?

When there is no consensus on a scenario as you describe, the only ethical decision making process is the probabilistic one: we flip a coin (or any other probabilisitcally balanced method, such as drawing lots, Kai Bai Bo, etc.)

Why? Because all other things being equal, humans are incapable of otherwise making a non-selfish declaration of worth. Honestly, even when a lot of things are not equal it's still the fairest determination. I recognize that your ethical right to X is the same as mine, for the same reasons. If you can't agree to that, you've made a decision for me, and we can decide the other way. I can tell you I would stomp the bread into the ground so we could both die before I let anyone try letting might make right.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
You asked how a particular statement " can you tell me where you live so that I can never stumble across you?" could not be an attack. I showed how it could not be an attack.

Whether Rhea meant it as an attack - only she knows for sure. It is clear you feel that it was an attack, even though it is possible it was not. Your response indicates a problem with basic reasoning.

That particular statement made in the thread, of course. Not that particular statement made by any person under any circumstances. That would not be relevant.

Obviously, my assessment does not indicate any problems with basic reasoning.
This response does not. Your previous one did. Now that is settled, perhaps you are willing deal with the actual content of the OP instead of your pique.

No, that is not at all settled. There is nothing in my posts that indicate any kind of error in basic reasoning. The charge is false. The charge is unwarranted. It is your failure at reasoning that leads you to believe that.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
But again, the logical arguments in favor of prison violence are exactly the same. So if one condones prison violence, there is an implicit condoning of prison rape. It is not something coming out of someone's mouths, but it is implied by the arguments.

I definitely don't think it is necessarily implied by the arguments at all. Though I suppose Angra comes closest when he says beatings may be appropriate in certain cases.

You suppose that, but you should not suppose that, because there is nothing at all in my posts in this thread that suggest that.

I did not mention prison beatings at all. Certainly I did not mention illegal beatings. I considered two possible just punishments for rape (rape for fun, or for any of the usual motivations): imprisonment, and beatings. That a punishment is just does not entail that it is morally acceptable for a person to inflict it. I explained that very clearly too. In the present, I favor prison. In the past, when there were no available prisons. When rapists were beaten as a punishment, that was not only just, but usually acceptable (assuming it was not a beating to death). It's not as if people in the past when they could not make prisons had an obligation to let rapists get away with their rapes.

As for rape as a punishment, I already said I am against it. As I also explained, one key problem with retributive rape is that the intent is certainly not only retributive, but also sexual: even if the main motivation for retaliatory rape is to punish the rapist, there is a second motivation that the raping punisher can't avoid having - namely, to get an orgasm. That is not a proper motivation while inflicting a punishment. It is obvious that if raping the rapist is an available alternative, then so is beating the rapist up. But then, that would be the proper punishment to inflict (assuming no other is available).
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Why even bring retribution up at all?
Actually, retribution was brought up by Rhea in the OP. She argues against it. I engaged to defend retribution, not to defend prison rape, or prison assaults, etc.


Don2 (Don 1 Revised) said:
Let's agree that some people making jokes about it, actually want it to happen for retribution purposes.
This is what I said:

me said:
The behavior the jokes are about - i.e., prison rape - is not just retribution for the crimes of the inmates. In fact, it is not even unjust retribution for those crimes - it is not retribution at all, as the rapists do not rape the victims in order to punish them for the crimes for which they were sent to prison.

Prison rape for retribution purposes makes no sense. Not only is it not just, but it is not even retribution. It's like if the rapist just gets cancer and dies, or is killed by a mugger. That is only death, but not retribution. And neither is prison rape.

Additionally, I have made my case against retributive rape.

Don2 (Don 1 Revised) said:
So why are arguments for prison murder, prison assaults, and other prison violence so different than prison rape?
That depends on the case. If we're talking about prison murder and assaults as committed by other inmates, then sure there is no difference. The inmates do not do it for retribution purposes. If we're talking about other forms of violence that could be introduced by law as punishment, then it's very different, because they are for retribution purposes. For example, in terms of 10 years of imprisonment, some law might say 10 days but with beatings included during those 10 days. I am against that for the reasons I'm against beatings as legal punishment when prison is available. But it's very different from the assaults, rapes, murder, etc., committed by other inmates, and which are not carried out for retributive purposes generally.

And if you're talking about prison rape - or any rape - for retributive purposes, I already explained the difference: As I also explained, one problem with retributive rape is that the intent is certainly not only retributive, but also sexual: even if the main motivation for retaliatory rape is to punish the rapist, there is at least one second motivation that the rapist punisher can't avoid having - namely, to get an orgasm. That is not a proper motivation while inflicting a punishment. It is obvious that if raping the rapist is an available alternative, then so is beating the rapist up. But then, that would be the proper punishment to inflict (assuming no other is available), not the rape.


Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
I think it's different but the arguments are the same...prison rape is so unpopular no one here is going to try to defend it, but it's implicitly being defended by trying to defend prison violence.
I suggest you identify the people whose views you are criticizing then. I will reiterate that I do not defend prison violence. I do defend beating rapists in situations where prisons are not available (e.g., 20000 years ago, or today in some tribe of hunter-gatherers without access to that). But it is different from (partially) retributive rape.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,030
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
That is a real howler.
You've got the sign wrong.
I don't judge intelligence
:facepalm:

Hmm, yes. Most of those so-common-it-isn't-news families who want their loved one's murderer executed are thinking about the potential future deaths of strangers, not the actual recent death of their loved one. Good theory.
It is not a theory - dead people do not commit crimes after they are dead.
That's not what I called a theory. You were blatantly offering the theory that pro-execution families are motivated by "protection of civilians", as an alternative to the prima facie presumption that they're motivated by retributive urges.

My point is that it is just as possible that you have no clue what the families are thinking.
For any individual family, so stipulated. But, as noted upthread, pro-execution families are so numerous as to not be newsworthy, which means the law of large numbers comes into play. Like anyone who doesn't insulate himself from the world in an ideological bubble, I have quite a bit of clue as to what typical people commonly think.

Victim's family members think different things and have different ideas about what justice for their family member looks like. Some want the harshest sentence possible, including the death penalty. Some abhor the death penalty and do not wish to see it imposed. It's not always easily predictable who feels what.
Absolutely right.

I'm not entirely certain how much what the victim's family wants, in terms of sentencing, should have on sentencing.
Probably shouldn't matter much. Keep in mind that nobody here said it should matter much in terms of sentencing; we were referencing the phenomenon only as empirical evidence in an anthropological dispute about the prevalence of retributive impulses, for purely scientific purposes. :)
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
But again, the logical arguments in favor of prison violence are exactly the same. So if one condones prison violence, there is an implicit condoning of prison rape. It is not something coming out of someone's mouths, but it is implied by the arguments.

I definitely don't think it is necessarily implied by the arguments at all. Though I suppose Angra comes closest when he says beatings may be appropriate in certain cases.

You suppose that, but you should not suppose that, because there is nothing at all in my posts in this thread that suggest that.

I did not mention prison beatings at all. Certainly I did not mention illegal beatings. I considered two possible just punishments for rape (rape for fun, or for any of the usual motivations): imprisonment, and beatings. That a punishment is just does not entail that it is morally acceptable for a person to inflict it. I explained that very clearly too. In the present, I favor prison. In the past, when there were no available prisons. When rapists were beaten as a punishment, that was not only just, but usually acceptable (assuming it was not a beating to death). It's not as if people in the past when they could not make prisons had an obligation to let rapists get away with their rapes.

As for rape as a punishment, I already said I am against it. As I also explained, one key problem with retributive rape is that the intent is certainly not only retributive, but also sexual: even if the main motivation for retaliatory rape is to punish the rapist, there is a second motivation that the raping punisher can't avoid having - namely, to get an orgasm. That is not a proper motivation while inflicting a punishment. It is obvious that if raping the rapist is an available alternative, then so is beating the rapist up. But then, that would be the proper punishment to inflict (assuming no other is available).

Did I say illegal beatings? No, I didn't. And yet you waste time objecting on that basis and then go on to explain how what I said was actually correct. You did the same thing when I said your is already had an ought in it, before accepting that it pretty much did. Hair-splitting. This sort of thing is why I am a bit sceptical about some of your convoluted 'precision'.

Look, the point is, when you say you think beatings are ok if there is no alternative but not ok if there is, or that rape of a rapist is not a just retribution, or whether this or that is just, permissible, or acceptable, or whatever words you choose to deploy, you are in the end just telling us what Angra's personal call on the matter is (and maybe that of others who would agree with you). But you're not demonstrating an independent, real moral fact based on human intuitions as to which is better or more correct, or right, or permissible, or acceptable, etc. By all means have a moral framework, just don't kid yourself you've found actual, independent bedrock that makes you really, actually right and others really, actually mistaken. That's what's wrong with your whole approach, imo. By all means preface what you say with 'in my view'.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I can tell you I would stomp the bread into the ground so we could both die before I let anyone try letting might make right.

People like you just make human morality even harder to pin down than it already is. :)

Personally, I think I'd take the bread. I'd feel bad about the other guy starving to death though. I think I'd feel really bad actually. At least for a while. Or maybe I'd only do that if anyone else found out.

All other things being equal, obviously. One could come up with additional details that would nuance the matter.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,030
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
...prison rape is so unpopular no one here is going to try to defend it, but it's implicitly being defended by trying to defend prison violence.

No, I don't think any of those are being defended here, implicitly or otherwise.

I do. You can't get away from it if you condone prison violence. Rape is violence. There is nothing special about sex except that it is treated specially culturally, more taboo, and likewise homophobia makes men raping men an extremely unpopular thing. But again, the logical arguments in favor of prison violence are exactly the same. So if one condones prison violence, there is an implicit condoning of prison rape. It is not something coming out of someone's mouths, but it is implied by the arguments.
No, it isn't, because nobody here is condoning and/or "offering logical arguments in favor of" prison violence. It never happened. If you think I'm wrong, let's see you produce a quote.

There's a distinction you seem to be missing. Do you remember a fellow by the name of Michael Fay? He was in the news several years ago, when Singapore sentenced him to be caned for vandalism and petty theft. In the U.S. he became the, er, butt of jokes. At the same time the U.S. government was interceding on his behalf to try to pressure Singapore to live up to our more enlightened Western sensibilities about such barbaric practices, overall public opinion in the U.S. was on the side of Singapore. The caning may have been violence in a prison, but it is not what you've been using the phrase "prison violence" to mean. Four strokes of the cane administered to Fay's butt by a legally appointed government employee after a fair trial and a legal sentence of a beating is an entirely different thing from any random prisoner cornering Fay out of sight and beating him up for however long it takes until he feels like stopping.

The logical arguments in favor of retributive imprisonment that you've seen here could certainly be extended to cover a sentence of caning; but that in no way implies that they could be further extended to cover any random prisoner cornering another prisoner out of sight and beating him up for however long it takes until he feels like stopping. Retributive sentences are supposed to be defined in law and proportional to the severity of crimes; prison violence is undefined and unknowable by the law, and proportional only to the severity of the prisoner's weakness relative to other prisoners. Prison violence means a thief gets beaten and a murderer delivers the beating; that is not an outcome any of the logical arguments in favor of retribution cover. If we ever again decide to use caning as retribution, then it will be the job of the judicial system both to administer the caning sentence and also to protect the prisoner from any additional extrajudicial beatings. This is not rocket science.
 
Top Bottom