The Newly Departed thread: announcements (departures)

[Catholic_Lady]

Good. You're like me in that regard then. I'd want to know. I want to know everything. Most people wouldn't though once they know what it is lol.

---

Lol, I don't *like* it... but that's just what happens when someone repeatedly talk to me like I'm a piece of shit. BennyBoy had this huge fight with me in a thread some time ago where he accused me of being a rape apologist. And then in a separate occassion he went on this rant saying that I'm "insidious" and worse than the devil because I'm a theist who "comes off" as being nice lol. It was out of nowhere, too.

I mean, if the person apologizes or even just starts acting nice, I forgive immediately. But until that happens, they stay on my shit list.

You sound less forgiving than me (although you're still very forgiving) but then many people would think I hold grudges the way I rant at people and rant about them when they're not there

It's not really a matter of resentment or anger for me though. It's me telling them what a twat they are any why they frustrate me lol. I know it's not their fault and it's just them being them. But then it's not mine either because it's just me being me

You don't believe in free will, so I guess it wouldn't make sense for you to hold anyone's bad actions against them.

[Edwardo Piet]

Good. You're like me in that regard then. I'd want to know.  I want to know everything. Most people wouldn't though once they know what it is lol.

---

You sound less forgiving than me (although you're still very forgiving) but then many people would think I hold grudges the way I rant at people and rant about them when they're not there

It's not really a matter of resentment or anger for me though. It's me telling them what a twat they are any why they frustrate me lol. I know it's not their fault and it's just them being them. But then it's not mine either because it's just me being me

You don't believe in free will, so I guess it wouldn't make sense for you to hold anyone's bad actions against them.

Exactly right.

[Catholic_Lady]

You don't believe in free will, so I guess it wouldn't make sense for you to hold anyone's bad actions against them.

Exactly right.

How do you reconcile that with putting people in prison?

[Edwardo Piet]

Exactly right.

How do you reconcile that with putting people in prison?

I reconcile it pragmatically. Some people are dangerous and other people will suffer more than they will if they're let free to hurt people. Also, being in prison may teach them a lesson, so when they go out they're less likely to do harm.

Prisons are good for society. Opening all the prisons and letting the rapists and murderers run amok isn't such a good idea... and some criminals may be so dangerous they need life in prison for the good of all. Still, it's tragic really. That's why I think permanent detainment should certainly be humane, the important thing is to protect people.

[pocaracas]

You don't believe in free will, so I guess it wouldn't make sense for you to hold anyone's bad actions against them.

There are multiple levels to this... I don't think hammy managed to convey it

When you label an action as bad, you are referring to bad relative to something... usually, relative to other people.... sometimes to the self (seat belts!)

At the social level, a group of people has a certain number of needs and wants that should be catered to. One of those wants is that nothing bad happens to them, specially as coming from someone else in the same group. So, society has come up with multiple ways to deal with those few individuals that pop up and ruin the whole fun for the rest of us.... on some places, the person is killed, on some places, they are simply put in a place away from the rest of society (jail)... on some places, they get the offending limb chopped off... etc..etc..etc... humans are an imaginative bunch!

At the basic physics level, where we deal with atoms and electrons and the like, every thing that happens in our minds is deterministic, within the probabilistic nature of the Quantum world. Biological systems display this deterministic character, as they are usually large enough for QM crazyness to play a small, nearly negligible, role.

The brain is a very large biological system, linked to all points of our bodies.
It is known that damage to specific locations in the brain lead to very precise psychological alterations. But the brain is also a living organ, so it can, for certain types of damages, bypass the damage and everything continues functioning as normal.

Aside from memory, one of the basic cognitive functions of the brain is pattern recognition. Language can be thought of as one such pattern, I guess.... just like any other social behavior... even love.

At a higher level, we have our consciousness, our awareness. How the brain produces these is still unknown, so there's wiggle room for metaphysics to play around. But it is clear that this awareness draws upon the patterns stored in the brain, as well as the emotions associated with those patterns. These emotions are, at this level, a symptom of certain hormones being produced in the brain, at a more basic level. Perceived danger leads to one kind of emotion, while perceived offspring production leads to another kind, etc, etc...

Intuitively (which is to say that, apparently, evolution has favored the inclusion of these features built-in the brain), we can tell that something is bad if it leads to harm towards a member of our tribe. Nowadays, to us, "tribe" here may mean "country", it may mean group of friends, our religious group, our political group, it may mean an actual tribe, or the whole human population.

Just going by these varying concepts of "tribe" within individual minds, one can see how that can lead to varying results - what one considers good, the other might not, and so can, without going against his intuition, cause harm upon another individual. Our society, with its countries, has had to encompass all sorts of people in it and thus this country-wide tribe needs as broad as possible a definition of tribe for it to function.
Historically, a hierarchical structure has been found to work well in the governance of the people of these countries and this government has become perceived as good if its functions lead to a minimal harm towards the citizens. Those individuals who display a pattern of behaviors that lead to harm of the country's population need to be kept away from that population.

No matter how those individuals lack the underlying ability to act differently, to act good, they still need to be kept apart from the general population who does possess that ability.


(was this too convoluted?)

[Joods]

Wow. So much for respect.

[Angrboda]

Exactly right.

How do you reconcile that with putting people in prison?

I've made the argument before, but to my mind, punishment serves one of 5 possible goals: (I just added one)

1. Insuring the safety of innocents by isolating offenders from the community and depriving them of the opportunity to re-offend;
2. Deterrence;
3. Rehabilitation;
4. Compensation - the redistributing of the fruits of the offender's resources to compensate society;
5. Retribution - making someone "pay" for what they have done because they are morally deserving of punishment.

As noted, deterrence is generally not regarded as effective. And retribution is probably, from a moral and practical standpoint, one of the least compelling justifications for punishment. I'm not going to elaborate further where this suggests we head with criminal punishment except to point out two key points.

In Michel Foucault's landmark study of the history of punishment, Discipline and Punish, he points out how, with the reforms in punishment that have occurred in Europe since the 16th century, the focus of punishment has shifted away from punishing the individual for an act to one in which we largely punish and attempt to correct the person as someone who has a mind capable of committing such acts. Thus we allow insanity as a defense, because the person's inclination to commit crime is not amenable to the treatment, punishment. We adjust the punishment dependent on the goal of fixing the criminality of the mind, not on addressing the severity of the crime; three strikes and you're out is aimed at minds that can't be fixed, not crimes that have been committed. Child molesters can be given chemical or surgical castration in exchange for reduction of sentence and leniency. Prisoners are monitored for progress and paroled earlier if they "show signs of good character" — it's not the crime that determines punishment anymore, it's the predisposition to offend which is the focus of punishment. Retribution, perhaps, is a return to focus on the crime rather than on fixing the criminal mind, but I'd be hesitant to take that step without serious consideration as to whether doing so serves any legitimate purpose.

The second point is, that as a hard determinist, I don't believe in free will. The moral justification for using punishment as retribution for a crime is that the person is morally deserving of the punishment, and that requires moral culpability which doesn't exist in the required sense if free will doesn't exist. The other four aims of punishment — deterrence, isolation from society, compensation, and rehabilitation — all can be justified without recourse to the assumption of free will; retribution alone cannot. Now I recognize that relative to my peers, I hold an extreme view with regard to free will, yet I think many of us realize that, regardless of where on the continuum regarding the existence of free will you stand, most of us recognize that most crimes and criminal behavior is a consequence of both factors within the individual's control, as well as a large measure of factors totally outside their control, ranging from social class, education, intelligence, all the way to things like being born in a society or culture that encouraged certain values and not others, to being genetically fated to the development of temperament which leaves one at increased risk of criminal or violent behavior. As a personal matter, I try to remove free will from any justification for punishment; but even someone more moderate could well be persuaded to minimize the impact that situational factors such as being born black, being poor, and such have on the fairness and equity with which we address criminal behavior; I think, arguably, retribution results in unfairness because it treats moral culpability and the resources to act morally as evenly distributed resources, and they are not.

[Catholic_Lady]

I get putting people in prison to protect society, and not as punishment. And I agree with that. Nonetheless, if a person is not responsible for the acts they commited, I still don't think imprisoning them is just. Example would be someone who is innocent by reason of insanity. Of course, if you think no one is responsible for the acts they commit because they don't actually have free will, then it would seem everyone would fall under the category of innocent by your standards.

[Silver]

I get putting people in prison to protect society, and not as punishment. And I agree with that. Nonetheless, if a person is not responsible for the acts they commited, I still don't think imprisoning them is just. Example would be someone who is innocent by reason of insanity. Of course, if you think no one is responsible for the acts they commit because they don't actually have free will, then it would seem everyone would fall under the category of innocent by your standards.

The problem is that we have an imperfect justice system. It works most of the time, certainly, but there are those instances where it doesn't.

Also, it is most imperfect in how it favors those who spend the most money to earn the freedom from the justice they deserve.

---

Mister Agenda has been more absent lately.

[Silver]

See, no Valk.

She hasn't been around for a few days.