Jokes about prison rape on men? Not a fan.

[Jarhyn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

This is what I 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.

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.

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]

That is a real howler.

You've got the sign wrong.

I don't judge intelligence

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]

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]

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]

...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.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

For simplicity I gave the short version. It was of course more complicated. But overall the more lenient treatment of prisoners and reduced sentencing in the 1960'ies led to more violence since criminals weren't as afraid of jail. That's the story Stephen Pinker gives in "Better Angels of our Nature". It was after this that sanctions increased (as a reaction), which then rapidly increased the prison population. They're connected. The effect stopped in the 1990'ies when violent crime dramatically was reduced (for other complicated reasons).

My point is that you can't take the Norwegian prison system and only reform the US prison system and expect similar results. It'll be a disaster. Unless you also change the entire US society, culture and economy to match it. Good luck with that.

For whatever reason, the American culture requires criminals to be hit hard with a very big stick, or things go bad.

edit: I'm not an essentialist. I don't think it's the American race, or any sillyness like it. I think it's a matter of incentives. Economic incentives encourage certain behaviours which leads to a culture that make it work. Norway and USA have different economic incentives.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

For simplicity I gave the short version. It was of course more complicated. But overall the more lenient treatment of prisoners and reduced sentencing in the 1960'ies led to more violence since criminals weren't as afraid of jail.

That is one hell of a leap. In fact, the suggested mechanisms for the increase in crime is actually suggested as lead poisoning, not incarceration changes. And this is in an era where regardless of changes in incarceration OR lead exposure, there was still no significant push towards actual rehabilitation.

My point is that you can't take the Norwegian prison system and only reform the US prison system and expect similar results. It'll be a disaster.

Special pleading.

For whatever reason, the American culture requires criminals to be hit hard with a very big stick, or things go bad.

No. I am not buying the shit you are slinging. You can either provide a mechanism or you can pound sand

edit: I'm not an essentialist. I don't think it's the American race, or any sillyness like it. I think it's a matter of incentives. Economic incentives encourage certain behaviours which leads to a culture that make it work. Norway and USA have different economic incentives.

I think it is nothing of the sort. The differences lay entirely in what we do to them once we have them (rape, assault, torture), vs what Norway does to them (protect, house, treat as human, council, and teach career skills).

Well, that and the lead. Interestingly, that's the one thing I think the US will have a hard time with, both now and in the future: lead removal is expensive.

 

[ruby sparks]

For simplicity I gave the short version. It was of course more complicated. But overall the more lenient treatment of prisoners and reduced sentencing in the 1960'ies led to more violence since criminals weren't as afraid of jail. That's the story Stephen Pinker gives in "Better Angels of our Nature". It was after this that sanctions increased (as a reaction), which then rapidly increased the prison population. They're connected. The effect stopped in the 1990'ies when violent crime dramatically was reduced (for other complicated reasons).

Telling me second-hand that you read a book is not really a proper citation at all and even if it were, it would seem to differ substantially from what my citation suggested, so at this point you have not given me enough of a basis to judge which is more accurate.

And your saying that there is more or less nothing to be done just because of the cultural differences is just negativity. Of course there are things with could be done even if at the same time you have a partial point about the differences in culture.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

So, ethics all boils down to game theory for me. The universe is a game where the goal is to maximize what I have been calling X. It is notably NOT to "minimise suffering", though for many people that is inclusive within their personal resolution of X.

To that end, I only have one way to guarantee that you won't try for the bread, and will respect the coin toss: to destroy the bread. It's a pretty tragic outcome if you ask me. But it only comes IFF you lose the coin toss and you choose to abandon your civility. If nobody allows any "cheater" to succeed (and note, it isn't about punishment but preventing the logic of "cheating"), then cheating becomes something that people can readily identify as something not to be done. It doesn't absolve society of the need to continue applying the mechanism that causes cheating to fail, but it does absolve us of the costs of people widely choosing to cheat.

Look at it this way: the bread is mine, if we get to the point I described. I only stomp the bread if I win the coin toss and you try anyway, because it is my bread and dying for my principles is within X.

You would have known this right at the start, before the coin toss, that the game is "a random one between us gets to eat, and if randomness is not respected, the bread is destroyed".

Would you still try it? Really? Because there is no "taking the bread" if you are there with me. There is only Kai Bai Bo and taking your random chance or staring at a lump of inedible mud. I am not the one dooming us, you are the one attempting to doom me, assuming I win the (randomized) game. I'm just doing the extent of work necessary to defend my rights.

 

[ruby sparks]

For simplicity I gave the short version. It was of course more complicated. But overall the more lenient treatment of prisoners and reduced sentencing in the 1960'ies led to more violence since criminals weren't as afraid of jail.

That is one hell of a leap. In fact, the suggested mechanisms for the increase in crime is actually suggested as lead poisoning, not incarceration changes. And this is in an era where regardless of changes in incarceration OR lead exposure, there was still no significant push towards actual rehabilitation.

So are you saying you think his (somewhat general) citation is inaccurate, that the suggested mechanisms were not lenient judicial processes?

Personally, I can say that I have not heard his claim previously. I am more familiar with the opposite. The War on Drugs which was initiated in the early 1970's, I believe, springs to mind for example.

 

[Jarhyn]

For simplicity I gave the short version. It was of course more complicated. But overall the more lenient treatment of prisoners and reduced sentencing in the 1960'ies led to more violence since criminals weren't as afraid of jail.

That is one hell of a leap. In fact, the suggested mechanisms for the increase in crime is actually suggested as lead poisoning, not incarceration changes. And this is in an era where regardless of changes in incarceration OR lead exposure, there was still no significant push towards actual rehabilitation.

So are you saying you think his citation is inaccurate, that the suggested mechanisms were not lenient judicial processes?

Personally, I can say that I have not heard his claim previously. I am more familiar with the opposite. The War on Drugs springs to mind for example.

Yes, I think his citation is inaccurate. I had heard it and it was widely used to increase incarceration straight into the 90's along with all other manner of racist policies pushed in the US.

Of course, nobody here suggesting the end of retributive justice is suggesting "leniency" with regards to what was done in the US anyway. We are suggesting aggressive rehabilitation, that incarceration become indefinite and the bar for ending it being that they are considered rehabilitated rather than "suitably punished".

Notice how he handwaved away the reduction that conveniently aligns with the time delayed effect of the removal of lead from gasoline.

There are difficulties in doing this in America. Those difficulties are, well, mostly people like Bomb and AM who have been brought up slavering for revenge rather than better utility of outcomes. What that tells me though is that Dr Z Bomb, AM and any other revengist need more is to be put at the pointy end of a public information and propaganda campaign that depopularizes the idea.

I have heard his claim plenty, and in fact it was the ridiculousness of it that prompted the later study into lead exposure.

Of course, I refuse to believe that DZ was not already aware of this competing explanation; his omission of it and stating the previous theory as a fact without even mention of the much more strongly evidenced theory seems telling to me.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't judge intelligence

That is a snipped quote taken out of context which thereby distorts its meaning.

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.

I offered it as a possible alternative. There are also other possible alternatives.

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.

Your "notation above" about pro-execution families is handwaved speculation.

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.

Confidence is not knowledge.

 

[DrZoidberg]

My point is that you can't take the Norwegian prison system and only reform the US prison system and expect similar results. It'll be a disaster.

Special pleading.

I find this comment absurd. The two societies are extremely different. Radically different on almost every level. I think it's on you to defend why it's special pleading.

For whatever reason, the American culture requires criminals to be hit hard with a very big stick, or things go bad.

No. I am not buying the shit you are slinging. You can either provide a mechanism or you can pound sand

A lot of people have speculated on that. It was tried in USA and didn't work for whatever reason. I'm sorry reality doesn't like your pet theory.

They had leaded petrol in Norway as well. I think your lead petrol -> violence argument is weak. It's got the post hoc ergo propter hoc issue, all over it. If you want to go the medical route you could argue that we were heavily prescribed sedatives and sleeping pills back then. This leads to all kinds of mental problems. Which we stopped doing. It's at least less now. But even that isn't particularly strong. I think a better explanation is that our society is richer now. There's fewer people desperately poor. A person who is a fuck up and who's life is out of control will have a softer landing in a strong economy, which means less overall stress in life. And no country on Earth (probably) has a softer landing for fuckups than Norway.

 

[ruby sparks]

I find this comment absurd. The two societies are extremely different. Radically different on almost every level. I think it's on you to defend why it's special pleading.

I rather think it's you who needs to defend saying "there is nothing as regards Norway that can be applied elsewhere". We all agree there are differences between countries that may mean some things can't be done (or learned) but yours is the initial overstatement.

 

[ruby sparks]

It was tried in USA and didn't work for whatever reason.

I think you need to back that up a lot more than you have done so far. The suggestion that the USA engaged in such 'enlightened, soft-landing' policies and that they resulted in increased crime and greatly increased prison populations is genuinely new to me. On the face of it, it seems that the prison population rose dramatically during or after a time when they...what...weren't putting people in prison so readily, or for so long, or what?

I know nothing about the claims regarding lead poisoning.