Yeah, but your balancing your equation of "what's a life worth" against literally no measurable benefit(that I've ever seen demonstrated in any sort of factual way, before we get some bizarre hypothetical here).
I'll continue to assert that substantive evidence about improvement of quality of life/safety for other citizens is a valid reason, but you actually have to prove that to overturn principal for "pragmatism".
How do you even respond to the assertion that "not killing" is baseless?
Want to know the difference between a murderer and a rabid dog? A rabid dog can never be rehabilitated because it's suffering from a degenerative neurological condition that is both incurable and dangerous that leads to suffering not just of its victims but also itself. Putting it down is a mercy. Whereas you're talking about a human being who made a terrible decision, but can reform, can be put through completely unnecessary suffering, and doesn't magically becoming incurably evil the moment of a crime.
You want to go back in time and shoot them before they kill someone? That's super duper okay. Pretending killing them after the fact somehow does something beneficial? That's just a revenge centered monkey-brain talking.
But... we don't execute people who aren't emotional targets(anymore). That debate will not happen. We got past the era of executing bread thieves. We just haven't gotten past the era of executing murderers.
But if they truly don't care, the words they use, they also shouldn't explicitly want suffering, right? It's a thin veneer, hiding the fact that there's a thick layer of sadistic glee there.
Yep, life sure is easy when you can just classify people into groups that "count" and those that don't. You know who else killed people they found subhuman?
I'm not sure why your personal lack of concern is even relevant.
We've got a debate here that has two sides. 1. "We think there's a higher principal to uphold as a society" 2. *Comes in shouting about how little they care about the issue*
Honestly... I don't think you'll ever "pay off" intentionally harming another person(unless the harm is strictly financial). Which, to me, makes the question become "What else can be achieved through the prison system?"
Does rehabilitation require longer sentences for multiple crimes? Does deterrence play that large a role in exactly how serious a crime people are willing commit?
I think the actual observational evidence I've seen says: "No, but a system to retain unreformed criminals makes sense" and "No, people aren't concerned with degree of consequences when committing serious crimes." But I welcome new information regarding these points, it's good to learn from being wrong..
Some people think that the justice systems' job is the arbiter of karma, rather than preventing crime. I've not discovered a way to discuss these things with the former group. I'm not sure what you can tell that kind of person.
Theoretically, the first three they created told a story from beginning to end too. It's like complaining about LOTR because the Hobbit ended quite thoroughly(books, not movies).
Slashdot Mirror
As you went on describing those groups you got more and more fringe-right.
At least the bad parts that lead to massive injustices in those cultures, yeah.
A book that does a great job discussing the topic of dehumanization.
Yeah, but your balancing your equation of "what's a life worth" against literally no measurable benefit(that I've ever seen demonstrated in any sort of factual way, before we get some bizarre hypothetical here).
I'll continue to assert that substantive evidence about improvement of quality of life/safety for other citizens is a valid reason, but you actually have to prove that to overturn principal for "pragmatism".
"We shouldn't kill people"
"That's baseless!"
How do you even respond to the assertion that "not killing" is baseless?
Want to know the difference between a murderer and a rabid dog? A rabid dog can never be rehabilitated because it's suffering from a degenerative neurological condition that is both incurable and dangerous that leads to suffering not just of its victims but also itself. Putting it down is a mercy. Whereas you're talking about a human being who made a terrible decision, but can reform, can be put through completely unnecessary suffering, and doesn't magically becoming incurably evil the moment of a crime.
You want to go back in time and shoot them before they kill someone? That's super duper okay. Pretending killing them after the fact somehow does something beneficial? That's just a revenge centered monkey-brain talking.
Guess what. You can be morally superior to a murderer too! All you gotta do is not kill people.
But... we don't execute people who aren't emotional targets(anymore). That debate will not happen. We got past the era of executing bread thieves. We just haven't gotten past the era of executing murderers.
Yeah, yeah. Pretending I'm endorsing the murder of one person because I don't support the torture of another.
Great. That's extraordinarily dishonest and you should feel bad.
But if they truly don't care, the words they use, they also shouldn't explicitly want suffering, right? It's a thin veneer, hiding the fact that there's a thick layer of sadistic glee there.
Except that's an undemonstrated assertion. I'd be happy to accept it, if the conclusion followed from the premise.
Yep, life sure is easy when you can just classify people into groups that "count" and those that don't. You know who else killed people they found subhuman?
So... what exactly do you think those years are achieving?
Non-concurrent sentencing creates some weird artifacts.
Criminal A is involved in 2 bank heists that steal $10,500.
Criminal B is involved in one jewelry heist that steals $50,000
Criminal A gets 2 counts of grand theft, and a sentence twice as long as B who stole more.
Because we're not murderers? I mean. You're acknowledging it was immoral not to care when he did it. Why should we be immoral?
Oh, I guess I'm completely ignorant of my own justice system. Are there guidelines about when he should do which?
I'm not sure why your personal lack of concern is even relevant.
We've got a debate here that has two sides.
1. "We think there's a higher principal to uphold as a society"
2. *Comes in shouting about how little they care about the issue*
Because the morally superior group that retains the right to judge this guy just loves suffering so much?
You know what I get out of a murderer suffering in agony? You know what amazing benefit society at large gains?
Nothing. Nothing at all.
You're trying to pretend that time in jail = some cosmic debt owed.
The countries that have this different system, don't take that perspective.
Oh, right, I forgot how okay pointless suffering is if an anonymous poster on the internet says they don't mind. I can be so forgetful.
Because, murderer or no, they are human beings? Nothing is actually gained through their suffering, besides pleasing the bloodthirsty.
Honestly... I don't think you'll ever "pay off" intentionally harming another person(unless the harm is strictly financial). Which, to me, makes the question become "What else can be achieved through the prison system?"
Does rehabilitation require longer sentences for multiple crimes? Does deterrence play that large a role in exactly how serious a crime people are willing commit?
I think the actual observational evidence I've seen says: "No, but a system to retain unreformed criminals makes sense" and "No, people aren't concerned with degree of consequences when committing serious crimes." But I welcome new information regarding these points, it's good to learn from being wrong..
Did you know that in many countries, sentences are served simultaneously, rather than consecutively?
Some people think that the justice systems' job is the arbiter of karma, rather than preventing crime. I've not discovered a way to discuss these things with the former group. I'm not sure what you can tell that kind of person.
Not all heart attacks kill. Many induce absolutely tremendous levels of suffering.
We all have opinions about the entertainment media we have enjoyed. Let's disagree with each other about it!
(No really, sequelitus is bullshit, and makes it harder for good new concepts to get out)
Theoretically, the first three they created told a story from beginning to end too. It's like complaining about LOTR because the Hobbit ended quite thoroughly(books, not movies).
Naaaaaah, I was just saying that it's he's already had the lobotomy.