Biden Losing It

[bennyboy]

Yeah, we don't want to "stigmatize" rapists, murders and drug dealers.  It might hurt their feelings.

Right, because stigmatization contributes to recidivism and is unjustified.  You really don't think through the things you say, do you?

Being suspicious of someone who has acted dishonorably isn't a violation of their rights.  You aren't impeding the attempt of a person in good standing to pursue happiness.

What you're doing is noting that if someone has acted badly in the past, that's a pretty fair indication that they may do so in the future.

[Irreligious Atheist]

On a side note with regarding to free will-- it doesn't matter too much, because it's the whole human system, not just criminals.  Philosophies adopted, mores evolved, punishments meted out-- these would ALL be deterministic.

It's a nice little free pass for anyone who wants it, not just criminals-- "Well, if we hang him by his balls and slit his throat-- that's always what we were gonna do.  So let's do it."

Yes, it is all pretty much deterministic, but knowing that truth can change our way of thinking, perhaps, and make us for more humane treatment of criminals. Would we torture a bear for killing? No. Then we probably shouldn't torture anyone. Lack of free will is not really a case for giving people voting rights, however, as you could just say that the criminals have defective brains and therefore they shouldn't vote, and that would be a decent argument, but still one that I would disagree with. And we're not giving anyone a free pass as in saying they shouldn't be separated from society if they are a threat to it. If they are a threat, society needs to be protected of course, but that doesn't mean we can't still try to be as moral as possible and not sink to the level of the criminals actions that got them there. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[arewethereyet]

Lots of pearl-clutching with regard to the voting rights of convicted felons.  There is information out there if you take the time to look for it.

In large part, if not while incarcerated, felons regain the right to vote after they have served their sentence.

But lets not let reality get in the way of conspiracy.

Voting rights for convicted felons - Ballotpedia

The table below summarizes voting rights for convicted felons in each of the 50 states as of August 2022.[1][2][3]

1. In two states and Washington, D.C., convicted felons always retained the right to vote: Maine and Vermont.
   
   
2. In two states, voting rights were restored to a convicted felon immediately upon completion of prison and parole time: California and Connecticut.
   
   
3. In nine states, felons with certain convictions never regained the right to vote. The government may opt to restore an individual's voting rights. In Arizona, the government must opt to restore voting rights for individuals with two or more felony convictions. Voting rights are automatically restored to an individual with one felony conviction upon completion of his or her sentence.
   
   
4. In 19 states, voting rights were restored to a convicted felon immediately upon completion of his or her prison sentence.
   
   
5. In 18 states, voting rights were restored to a convicted felon upon completion of his or her sentence, including prison time, parole, and probation.[4]
   

[The Grand Nudger]

Ultimately, those plans that exist to strip (and even permanently strip) a felon of voting rights aren't based on any policy or moral position - but on the utility of the schemes to suppress what the advocates believe will be votes for the other guy, and what the prison industry believes will be votes against their business model.

I'd say it's a fair bet - a drug offender will be more motivated than most to vote for decriminalization, release, and expunging those records.

[Angrboda]

Right, because stigmatization contributes to recidivism and is unjustified.  You really don't think through the things you say, do you?

Being suspicious of someone who has acted dishonorably isn't a violation of their rights.  You aren't impeding the attempt of a person in good standing to pursue happiness.

What you're doing is noting that if someone has acted badly in the past, that's a pretty fair indication that they may do so in the future.

Uh, no, it's not. One act tells you close to zero information, even about the act. And your suspicion doesn't grant you any rights regarding the offenders. Your suspicions get you dick. You're just exercising your prejudice toward the harm of individuals who may not merit your harm and that is immoral. By doing so, you yourself, according to your own principal have violated the social contract and are hoist on your own petard. People are innocent until proven guilty. Period. You don't get to punish people twice for the same crime just because it gives you warm feelies, you sicko. And you still are just posting red herrings because it isn't whether your bigotry is acceptable or not, but whether your interpretation of the social contract as an all-or-nothing principle is sensible.

[The Grand Nudger]

It;s a weird angle to come from anyway, since private citizens are incapable of doing as much harm to other citizens as our government. If we're worried about agents that break the social contract, government as an agent should be top of mind for capacity and opportunity alone - and they never disappoint.

We worry about murderers? Okay, so what do we do when the cops kill more people in a county than the murderers™ do? Well..we say that we should enhance their qualified immunity, that's what! It' a neat accounting trick in the murder column.

[bennyboy]

On a side note with regarding to free will-- it doesn't matter too much, because it's the whole human system, not just criminals.  Philosophies adopted, mores evolved, punishments meted out-- these would ALL be deterministic.

It's a nice little free pass for anyone who wants it, not just criminals-- "Well, if we hang him by his balls and slit his throat-- that's always what we were gonna do.  So let's do it."

Yes, it is all pretty much deterministic, but knowing that truth can change our way of thinking, perhaps, and make us for more humane treatment of criminals. Would we torture a bear for killing? No. Then we probably shouldn't torture anyone. Lack of free will is not really a case for giving people voting rights, however, as you could just say that the criminals have defective brains and therefore they shouldn't vote, and that would be a decent argument, but still one that I would disagree with. And we're not giving anyone a free pass as in saying they shouldn't be separated from society if they are a threat to it. If they are a threat, society needs to be protected of course, but that doesn't mean we can't still try to be as moral as possible and not sink to the level of the criminals actions that got them there. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Well, if it's in the cards for us to be humane, we'll be humane.  Otherwise, we won't.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Or maybe fate dictates that we type a lot about it, get mad, post cat memes, vote for morons, and wonder why our drinking water is flammable. Determinism is kind of cool, tbh, if it's complex enough.

[bennyboy]

Uh, no, it's not.   One act tells you close to zero information, even about the act.    And your suspicion doesn't grant you any rights regarding the offenders.  Your suspicions get you dick.  You're just exercising your prejudice toward the harm of individuals who may not merit your harm and that is immoral.  And you still are just posting red herrings because it isn't whether your bigotry is acceptable or not, but whether your interpretation of the social contract as an all-or-nothing principle is sensible.

There's a reason people are superstitious and prejudicial. It's because it benefits genetic fitness.

How many times has "Trust me, I've changed" been followed by a 5th rape, or a 2nd murder victim, or a wife going back to a husband and shortly thereafter receiving her 100th beating? Hint: it's common as fuck.

As for bigotry-- what bigotry would that be? Bigotry against convicted felons? What are you even talking about?

[The Grand Nudger]

What is natural is not necessarily what is true, nor, for that matter, right - supposing there's a difference.

-and yes, a great many people have negatively weighted misperceptions of the second class un-persons that the us tends to make, or try to make, when it's fucking around in the courts. That's why it's hard to get a job, for example. Drug dealers tend not to knock over dollar stores, for example. In mere reality, drug dealers would be highly sought after managers if the model is to sell shoddy shit to poor people for maximum profit.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Kind puts the (lost) topic of this thread into perspective.





Boru