Whether or not they should is another matter entirely.
I wasn't interested in an argument surrounding rhetoric, which is why I tried to limit the discussion to that which is, not that which ought to be. I'm still not interested in rhetoric. If you have any real arguments, I'm willing to listen/debate/learn. If this is all you've got, I'll not return to this part of the thread.
(And the word that you're looking for is "tough", not "though".)
Some of your argument is accurate, and some is flamebait.
One correction that I would address: Sociopathy isn't the mere lack of empathy. It isn't even a chronic lack of empathy. A sociopath is one who is incapable of feeling empathy.
I doubt any of the people you've just called out are true sociopaths. True sociopaths learn very early to mimic emotion in order to manipulate others. Most are quite charismatic and compelling, not something that I would attribute to the pro-death/castration posts that I have seen in this thread.
Are you saying that 18 is a magic age when children become sentient humans?
18 is the age that we have determined as a society that people can be assumed to be adults. Those who are not will only make the transition by being treated as an adult. A mystical one-size-fits-all age only works if most people are reasonably adult prior to that point. Yes, there was a time mere decades ago when 18 year-olds tended to be actual adults and not overgrown children.
Perhaps you're saying that 17 year-olds have no rights at all? How many teenagers have you seen who grew up behind bars? Most importantly, at 17 you understand that you have a right to live. Along with that specific right, you have the responsibility to allow others to live. That's not at all beyond the comprehension of a 17 year-old.
Punishing parents? That's a bad idea. Many parents deserve it, to be sure. Not all of them do. In fact, the tough love that teens often need is offset by the protections placed around children. Give your child a hard (but legal) punishment (when they really need it), and many of them will lie to school counselors about child abuse. Raising a child correctly in our current society involves luck (friends, teachers, media, etc). It's sad but true.
The "teenage sense of invincibility" is neither an excuse nor a mitigating factor, nor should it be. There are various forces that cause this. Hormones contribute, but are never the primary cause. Attributing it to brain wiring development is as effective as attributing it to hocus pocus. Neuroscience is still in its infancy. They're a very long ways away from making a thesis like that. (not that it will keep them from speculating)
No, the three primary causes as I see them are (1) not being allowed to grow up, gradually taking responsibility for ones own actions. When one discovers that he is free to act as he wants, he'll have no prior experience of his own failure. That doesn't lead to murder, but it does lead to a sense of invincibility. (2) social pressure. Their peers act invincible to obtain status. This becomes self reinforcing in a small macho group. If ones peers are invincible, you must be too. Furthermore, nothing truly bad ever happens to TV heroes (nobody ever thinks of themselves as an extra). Never underestimate the behavioral power of peer pressure. (3) some drugs cause this. I have no first hand experience, but I've spoken to people who have.
I think if you sat down and honestly pondered your formative years, you'd be able to identify sociological pressures that caused (or at least contributed to) your sense of invincibility. You could easily find things not in my list.
To rehash: shooting someone is not a learning experience. It is an utter failure by the perpetrator, and often many of the people around him. Such a person cannot be trusted as a member of society, and mere counseling (or any technique on its own) isn't going to "rehabilitate" him any more than an 18 year old or a 25 year old.
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, we can't keep thinking of the criminal justice system as one that measures debts to be paid. The terms "debt to society" and "paid [...] dues" really need to be removed from our venacular. We need a paradigm shift. The rational reason to have a criminal justice system is to prevent further crime. It is that simple. Now in that light, I agree with you. I agree not because they've magically repaid something, but because you're addressing the real issue of preventing future crime.
I realize you're being snarky, but that's just cruel (to the family). No, the actual execution isn't the problem. It's the extra court proceedings. (not given to equally innocent/guilty lifers.)
Sociopaths will act in their own best interests. They are best utilized by other sociopaths. Others won't be as willing to turn a blind eye.
Not necessarily a good outcome for people in general, but a good outcome for you.
That is an unethical stance, and one easily adopted by sociopaths. To put it bluntly, I don't want to live in that kind of world, so why should I act that way? (meaning in this case: the act of accepting sociopathy as inevitable and acceptable, particularly when given authority.)
I still disagree with most use of the term "legislating from the bench." More often than not, the term is used to mean "the judge made a decision I don't agree with"...
Yeah, that happens. It might even be most of the time the term is used (or abused, rather). The converse is true, too. Sometimes a judge really is legislating from the bench, but people defend him/her because they like the decision. You're right, but it cuts both ways.
... and from where I'm standing, it's most frequently thrown around when a judge decided to weigh someone's rights above someone else's wants. Which, at the end of the day, is the entire reason that we have a legal system.
The controversial cases are where judges decide that certain rights exist which have no constitutional or legal basis (or foundation in reason or wisdom, for that matter). Again, there are certainly times where you are correct, and legitimate rights are on the line.
Part of the problem is that the Judiciary has unilaterally declared that they are the sole interpreters of law. I think it would really be healthy if there had been supreme court justices impeached in the distant past for failing to uphold the constitution. Alas, with all its faults, SCOTUS is far more reasonable right now than congress. (which isn't saying much)
I think it's ironic that you consider me confused. Who in the world came up with that mess? You're either parroting something, or you're claiming to be a mental health quack. (Apologies to any legitimate mental health experts reading this; you do have quacks among you.)
And just for clarity, the direct consequence of shooting somebody is that they become irrevocably dead. A 17 year old can grasp that just fine. I don't expect them to grasp the intricate consequences of prison. Most adults don't. They don't have to in order to understand that they are behaving in an entirely unacceptably and illegal manner, and to know that they will be dealt with harshly.
If someone doesn't have an intuitive sense that their actions generally have consequences which affect them by the time they reach puberty, they are either retarded (clinically) or have had a terribly upbringing.
It's true. It's also true that it was developed under Monarchy rule, which we've also rejected. Your point is what? That royally appointed judges are better lawmakers than elected officials?
and yes, their opinions ARE law... that's neither un-Constitutional nor new
Only in the loosest sense, and only through stare decisis. Such is referred to as "case law", and is subject to being overturned by a later or higher court. Legislating from the bench certainly isn't new, but is unconstitutional. The Judiciary has constitutional power to apply law given them by constitutionally authorized legislators, not to make stuff up themselves.
It's not the execution that costs so much. It's three injections: general anesthetic, paralytic, poison. None of these are terribly uncommon or expensive. The first two can be found in any operating room, and the third at any vet.
No, it's the court proceedings that cost so much. Either (a) we're allowing these guys to abuse the system quite unreasonably or (b) we're denying people with life sentences their due process. Again, something is out of kilter.
Please stop perpetuating the "paid dues" fallacy. The legal system isn't about retribution (when it's functioning), but about preventing future crime. In that light, your suggestions of jail or mental facility (and/or counseling) are still spot on.
Now arguments contending that his punishment may be ineffective at preventing future crime (ex: other vectors of attack) have some weight behind them. That he has "paid his dues" is just weak.
(I don't blame you. It's just a faulty paradigm that you've been taught.)
Sociopaths perform important functions in modern organisations.
Excuse me? You make it sound like it's a good thing. Many important jobs are done by sociopaths and many of them may consider sociopathy to be a "benefit" to them. (eg. politicians) Still it is never a benefit to the rest of society. Sociopathy does not perform any useful function in "modern organizations" or modern society despite superficial appearances to the contrary.
The proper thing is for the lower court to modify the sentence and say that he can't have access to the internet via a computer. Of course, that still leaves open the definition of what constitutes a computer that others have mentioned.
If he's accessing the Internet, then he's doing so by computer. This is by definition.
But of course when you commit a crime you loose all your rights, right? Nope, you serve time and then get them back either fully or under some form of monitoring,...
What about the right to vote? The right to bear arms? Many would contend the right to pursue happiness is never fully restored (records are not sealed against background checks in the US as they are in some countries). No, they don't get all their rights back. That would require further legal reform. Whether or not they should is another matter entirely.
Predatory child molesters should be given life. Traditional rape should have a harsher average penalty than it tends to. Other "sex offenders" should suffer their own stigma, and not the stigma of the truly debased.
I realize that you're just trolling, but you could at least try to make sense.
Uh, how does somebody's ability to understand the consequences and ethics of shooting somebody grow in a meaningful way beyond 17? We're not talking about a 2 year old who picked up his daddy's gun. He was just as capable as any adult of understanding that it was a really, really bad idea. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then charge (and sentence) him as an adult. (Early teens is fuzzy. Late teens is crystal clear.)
No, it's about preventing further incidents of crime. Incarceration is no more than that. They can't hurt anybody because they're locked up. Rehabilitation is also a good idea for the same basic reason - preventing further crime.
Confusing incarceration with punishment is very similar to confusing incarceration with rehabilitation. It's just not effective as that kind of tool, but it doesn't keep people from using it that way.
(Other judgments are about deterrence as a means to prevent crime, and function to varying degrees; and dysfunction for that matter...)
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh.
Whether or not they should is another matter entirely.
I wasn't interested in an argument surrounding rhetoric, which is why I tried to limit the discussion to that which is, not that which ought to be. I'm still not interested in rhetoric. If you have any real arguments, I'm willing to listen/debate/learn. If this is all you've got, I'll not return to this part of the thread.
(And the word that you're looking for is "tough", not "though".)
The "You" in my post doesn't refer to me.
I didn't think that it did. My retort was meant to be applied to those who you were referring to.
but I see it happen enough to accept that it is part of the normal operation of a bureaucracy.
This is what I was getting at. I see it, but choose not to accept it.
???
Yeah... Let's treat each person as accountable for that which they are capable of understanding. I'm not sure what else you think I'm advocating.
Some of your argument is accurate, and some is flamebait.
One correction that I would address: Sociopathy isn't the mere lack of empathy. It isn't even a chronic lack of empathy. A sociopath is one who is incapable of feeling empathy.
I doubt any of the people you've just called out are true sociopaths. True sociopaths learn very early to mimic emotion in order to manipulate others. Most are quite charismatic and compelling, not something that I would attribute to the pro-death/castration posts that I have seen in this thread.
Are you saying that 18 is a magic age when children become sentient humans?
18 is the age that we have determined as a society that people can be assumed to be adults. Those who are not will only make the transition by being treated as an adult. A mystical one-size-fits-all age only works if most people are reasonably adult prior to that point. Yes, there was a time mere decades ago when 18 year-olds tended to be actual adults and not overgrown children.
Perhaps you're saying that 17 year-olds have no rights at all? How many teenagers have you seen who grew up behind bars? Most importantly, at 17 you understand that you have a right to live. Along with that specific right, you have the responsibility to allow others to live. That's not at all beyond the comprehension of a 17 year-old.
Punishing parents? That's a bad idea. Many parents deserve it, to be sure. Not all of them do. In fact, the tough love that teens often need is offset by the protections placed around children. Give your child a hard (but legal) punishment (when they really need it), and many of them will lie to school counselors about child abuse. Raising a child correctly in our current society involves luck (friends, teachers, media, etc). It's sad but true.
The "teenage sense of invincibility" is neither an excuse nor a mitigating factor, nor should it be. There are various forces that cause this. Hormones contribute, but are never the primary cause. Attributing it to brain wiring development is as effective as attributing it to hocus pocus. Neuroscience is still in its infancy. They're a very long ways away from making a thesis like that. (not that it will keep them from speculating)
No, the three primary causes as I see them are (1) not being allowed to grow up, gradually taking responsibility for ones own actions. When one discovers that he is free to act as he wants, he'll have no prior experience of his own failure. That doesn't lead to murder, but it does lead to a sense of invincibility. (2) social pressure. Their peers act invincible to obtain status. This becomes self reinforcing in a small macho group. If ones peers are invincible, you must be too. Furthermore, nothing truly bad ever happens to TV heroes (nobody ever thinks of themselves as an extra). Never underestimate the behavioral power of peer pressure. (3) some drugs cause this. I have no first hand experience, but I've spoken to people who have.
I think if you sat down and honestly pondered your formative years, you'd be able to identify sociological pressures that caused (or at least contributed to) your sense of invincibility. You could easily find things not in my list.
To rehash: shooting someone is not a learning experience. It is an utter failure by the perpetrator, and often many of the people around him. Such a person cannot be trusted as a member of society, and mere counseling (or any technique on its own) isn't going to "rehabilitate" him any more than an 18 year old or a 25 year old.
Don't worry. If McDonald's does even a cursory background check, he won't be working there anyways.
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, we can't keep thinking of the criminal justice system as one that measures debts to be paid. The terms "debt to society" and "paid [...] dues" really need to be removed from our venacular. We need a paradigm shift. The rational reason to have a criminal justice system is to prevent further crime. It is that simple. Now in that light, I agree with you. I agree not because they've magically repaid something, but because you're addressing the real issue of preventing future crime.
I realize you're being snarky, but that's just cruel (to the family). No, the actual execution isn't the problem. It's the extra court proceedings. (not given to equally innocent/guilty lifers.)
"despite superficial appearances to the contrary"
Sociopaths will act in their own best interests. They are best utilized by other sociopaths. Others won't be as willing to turn a blind eye.
Not necessarily a good outcome for people in general, but a good outcome for you.
That is an unethical stance, and one easily adopted by sociopaths. To put it bluntly, I don't want to live in that kind of world, so why should I act that way? (meaning in this case: the act of accepting sociopathy as inevitable and acceptable, particularly when given authority.)
I still disagree with most use of the term "legislating from the bench." More often than not, the term is used to mean "the judge made a decision I don't agree with"...
Yeah, that happens. It might even be most of the time the term is used (or abused, rather). The converse is true, too. Sometimes a judge really is legislating from the bench, but people defend him/her because they like the decision. You're right, but it cuts both ways.
... and from where I'm standing, it's most frequently thrown around when a judge decided to weigh someone's rights above someone else's wants. Which, at the end of the day, is the entire reason that we have a legal system.
The controversial cases are where judges decide that certain rights exist which have no constitutional or legal basis (or foundation in reason or wisdom, for that matter). Again, there are certainly times where you are correct, and legitimate rights are on the line.
Part of the problem is that the Judiciary has unilaterally declared that they are the sole interpreters of law. I think it would really be healthy if there had been supreme court justices impeached in the distant past for failing to uphold the constitution. Alas, with all its faults, SCOTUS is far more reasonable right now than congress. (which isn't saying much)
I think it's ironic that you consider me confused. Who in the world came up with that mess? You're either parroting something, or you're claiming to be a mental health quack. (Apologies to any legitimate mental health experts reading this; you do have quacks among you.)
And just for clarity, the direct consequence of shooting somebody is that they become irrevocably dead. A 17 year old can grasp that just fine. I don't expect them to grasp the intricate consequences of prison. Most adults don't. They don't have to in order to understand that they are behaving in an entirely unacceptably and illegal manner, and to know that they will be dealt with harshly.
If someone doesn't have an intuitive sense that their actions generally have consequences which affect them by the time they reach puberty, they are either retarded (clinically) or have had a terribly upbringing.
It's true. It's also true that it was developed under Monarchy rule, which we've also rejected. Your point is what? That royally appointed judges are better lawmakers than elected officials?
and yes, their opinions ARE law... that's neither un-Constitutional nor new
Only in the loosest sense, and only through stare decisis. Such is referred to as "case law", and is subject to being overturned by a later or higher court. Legislating from the bench certainly isn't new, but is unconstitutional. The Judiciary has constitutional power to apply law given them by constitutionally authorized legislators, not to make stuff up themselves.
It's not the execution that costs so much. It's three injections: general anesthetic, paralytic, poison. None of these are terribly uncommon or expensive. The first two can be found in any operating room, and the third at any vet.
No, it's the court proceedings that cost so much. Either (a) we're allowing these guys to abuse the system quite unreasonably or (b) we're denying people with life sentences their due process. Again, something is out of kilter.
Please stop perpetuating the "paid dues" fallacy. The legal system isn't about retribution (when it's functioning), but about preventing future crime. In that light, your suggestions of jail or mental facility (and/or counseling) are still spot on.
Now arguments contending that his punishment may be ineffective at preventing future crime (ex: other vectors of attack) have some weight behind them. That he has "paid his dues" is just weak.
(I don't blame you. It's just a faulty paradigm that you've been taught.)
Then you haven't read much. I've read much dumber things, many of them written by AC for that matter...
Theoretically. Many of them receive parole anyways.
...If you sell a cop chalk, you'll get busted for selling drugs.
Only if the lab tech lies or the cop switches the white powders.
Sociopaths perform important functions in modern organisations.
Excuse me? You make it sound like it's a good thing. Many important jobs are done by sociopaths and many of them may consider sociopathy to be a "benefit" to them. (eg. politicians) Still it is never a benefit to the rest of society. Sociopathy does not perform any useful function in "modern organizations" or modern society despite superficial appearances to the contrary.
The proper thing is for the lower court to modify the sentence and say that he can't have access to the internet via a computer. Of course, that still leaves open the definition of what constitutes a computer that others have mentioned.
If he's accessing the Internet, then he's doing so by computer. This is by definition.
But of course when you commit a crime you loose all your rights, right? Nope, you serve time and then get them back either fully or under some form of monitoring,...
What about the right to vote? The right to bear arms? Many would contend the right to pursue happiness is never fully restored (records are not sealed against background checks in the US as they are in some countries). No, they don't get all their rights back. That would require further legal reform. Whether or not they should is another matter entirely.
Predatory child molesters should be given life. Traditional rape should have a harsher average penalty than it tends to. Other "sex offenders" should suffer their own stigma, and not the stigma of the truly debased.
I realize that you're just trolling, but you could at least try to make sense.
Uh, how does somebody's ability to understand the consequences and ethics of shooting somebody grow in a meaningful way beyond 17? We're not talking about a 2 year old who picked up his daddy's gun. He was just as capable as any adult of understanding that it was a really, really bad idea. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then charge (and sentence) him as an adult. (Early teens is fuzzy. Late teens is crystal clear.)
No, it's about preventing further incidents of crime. Incarceration is no more than that. They can't hurt anybody because they're locked up. Rehabilitation is also a good idea for the same basic reason - preventing further crime.
Confusing incarceration with punishment is very similar to confusing incarceration with rehabilitation. It's just not effective as that kind of tool, but it doesn't keep people from using it that way.
(Other judgments are about deterrence as a means to prevent crime, and function to varying degrees; and dysfunction for that matter...)