I’m going to try again to state my positions in a way that hopefully will be clearer. My positions have not changed, so if you read this and get a different idea about my positions, you probably didn’t understand my first post.
Now, in reality, my position is not segmentable; each part of what I believe cannot be separated from the other parts and still be effective or, in some cases, reasonable. If you read my position, then break it up into pieces to be examined separately – that is, each piece examined as though the others did not exist – you will certainly find that several parts don’t seem reasonable. So please, please, try to envision the entire thing at once, working together.
I’ll try to begin at the beginning.
I said
“As I stated, I agree that there is a problem with the system, with the way that people are convicted and sentenced, and actually with the entire judicial branch. The issue of “rehabilitation” is a complex one without a clear or universal solution at this time – but it is one that I believe personally is the responsibility of the courts, not the prisons, to determine. In my opinion, if the court determines that someone may be rehabilitated and become a productive member of society, that court has no business sending that person to prison, but instead should put them forcibly if necessary into an appropriate rehabilitation program. Those sent to prisons should be those who have no clear chance for rehabilitation.”
I thought this was clear from this statement, especially regarding the last sentence that, according to my opinions and beliefs, the only people who should ever be sent to prisons are those who have NO clear chance for rehabilitation. None. People who, when evaluated by a competent system (ie: not the current one) in light of effective methods for turning criminals permanently into productive members of society, are determined to have no clear opportunity for reform.
These are the only people who belong in prisons, in my opinion. Again, I thought this was clear from what I said. And I will say it again another way:
Under the system I am describing, the only people in the prisons would be the people who could not reasonably be expected re-enter society without continuing their criminal activities. This is taking into account every reasonable (or forcible) system that could be attempted to be used to prevent their continued criminal activities. I would even expect the rehabilitation systems to be the primary, most-used options, but under the assumption that anyone who had exhausted every rehabilitation option and still presented a threat to society would be, in the end, moved into the prison system.
Is this part of it clear? That the people who are going to the prison system have been determined by society to have no real right to return to society?
Okay, let’s cover one of the more controvercial statements I made:
“Incarceration does imply mistreatment. In my opinion, convicted criminals do not deserve medical or mental health treatment except where non-treatment would risk the lives of the guards or outside citizens or otherwise disproportionately increase the long-term costs of imprisonment. In my opinion, from the day they are convicted until they day they are released, prisoners are neither “people” nor should they be considered to be “human”, and making it to the end of their sentence alive and in good health should not be considered a guarantee nor a right.”
Now, since the only people who are entering the prison system are the people for whom it is determined by a competent and effective rehabilitation system that it would be unreasonable for them to be allowed to re-enter society, it seems very reasonable to me that those people who should not be allowed to re-enter society do not need protections and assistance designed to get them healthfully through their sentence and back into society.
Is that not clear? Not reasonable?
If you’re worried about the “wrongly convicted”, remember when I said “… there are major problems with the entire judicial branch, and the process by which people become convicted and sentenced needs to be torn down and rethought from scratch.”?
Yeah. I don’t have a completed system in mind for an entirely new and effective judicial system, but the current system is not it. If lawyers were allowed to continue to exist, they would not be permitted to withold information or lie, and in the case of criminals found innocent lawyers should be held accountable for future crimes committed by those they have represented to that end.
The judicial system should not be about “winning” and “losing” by “any means necessary”, but about all parties working together to discover the truth and interpret it with regards to the laws that apply and the intentions of the parties involved and the possibility of preventing future violations, as well as (in cases involving clear victims) potentially making reasonable reparations to victims.
Is that clear? The judicial system should be used to determine the ACTUAL guilt or innocence of accused parties. Reparations for victims should be reasonable, and based on actual verifiable needs created by verifiable crimes and not otherwise already repaired/fulfilled by private entities/charities/et cetera.
I have to go for right now, but I think I’ve re-stated some key points clearly.
As far as voting for Arpaio goes, I don’t think I’ve covered that here, but I’ll try to make some time for that later.
I understood your “key points” already. My argument was that your key points are not applicable to Joe Arpaio, which is what I thought we were discussing. I need you to directly tie in these points to a vote for Joe, because I’m missing the connection and the logic.
I completely understood the first time around that you think “the only people who should ever be sent to prisons are those who have NO clear chance for rehabilitation.” But my point was that, while this is all fine and good – it doesn’t happen that way. How can you include this as a basis for your support of Joe Arpaio? It just doesn’t follow. It’s an issue of your ideal judicial and prison system, and Joe has nothing to do with this – his job is to enforce the law as it is. And interpretation of the law? That’s up to the courts, not Joe.
While you might think it is “reasonable” to not provide health provisions for “hopeless case” criminals, I do not believe that it is ethical or humane. That is the wonderful thing about our modern-day justice system – it has less of that whole Middle Ages mentality. Inhumane sentences are frowned upon. Even for hopelessly violent, evil, disgusting, nasty, vile creatures that can never enter society again. We have morals, hence we are not in jail, hence we should exercise our morals in the treatment of those in jail, even if they lack morals themselves.
But, anyway – this seems like a completely different issue. It really has nothing to do with Arpaio because even though you “want” this to be the case, it is not legally the case. (er, “this” being mistreatment, etc.) Even if you were to vote for him because you thought he would be “moving toward” this system you support, he has no control over who is admitted to his jails, so he would be doling out the illegal mistreatment on those who in fact can be rehabilitated.
If you are voting for a person to *uphold* the law it is not reasonable to vote for someone to *break* the law. That was one of my main points, and it seems like you’re not addressing my critical arguments.
Keep in mind that when I originally spoke of mistreatment, it was referring to Joe and his mistreatment of female prisoners re: web cameras of them in compromising situations. Absolutely not all of these women were beyond the hope of rehabilitation, and thus they *cannot* fit in your model. Yet your response was that “incarceration does imply mistreatment” – a statement about your theoretical model. Perhaps your statement holds true in your ideal hypothetical prison system, but what about how things *actually* are? I would like to see more discussion of what *is* and what we can do about how things are and less talk about
Anyway, even though I understood you meant this mistreatment should (or could) be applied to the “hopeless cases” in your model, I was forced to apply it to the “non-hopeless cases” because it seemed you had done so first. I discussed actual mistreatment, and in response you talked about hypothetical mistreatment. It’s convoluted logic and it’s not a logical reason to vote for Joe.
And about the judicial system – okay, good, so you have more to say about how you’d like the world to be, and I can’t disagree with your thoughts on how it “should” be. But this has very little to do with a vote for Joe. All my arguments relate back to Joe because I am debating the logic behind voting for him. What are you trying to get across?
I understood your “key points” already. My argument was that your key points are not applicable to Joe Arpaio, which is what I thought we were discussing. I need you to directly tie in these points to a vote for Joe, because I’m missing the connection and the logic.
I completely understood the first time around that you think “the only people who should ever be sent to prisons are those who have NO clear chance for rehabilitation.” But my point was that, while this is all fine and good – it doesn’t happen that way. How can you include this as a basis for your support of Joe Arpaio? It just doesn’t follow. It’s an issue of your ideal judicial and prison system, and Joe has nothing to do with this – his job is to enforce the law as it is. And interpretation of the law? That’s up to the courts, not Joe.
While you might think it is “reasonable” to not provide health provisions for “hopeless case” criminals, I do not believe that it is ethical or humane. That is the wonderful thing about our modern-day justice system – it has less of that whole Middle Ages mentality. Inhumane sentences are frowned upon. Even for hopelessly violent, evil, disgusting, nasty, vile creatures that can never enter society again. We have morals, hence we are not in jail, hence we should exercise our morals in the treatment of those in jail, even if they lack morals themselves.
But, anyway – this seems like a completely different issue. It really has nothing to do with Arpaio because even though you “want” this to be the case, it is not legally the case. (er, “this” being mistreatment, etc.) Even if you were to vote for him because you thought he would be “moving toward” this system you support, he has no control over who is admitted to his jails, so he would be doling out the illegal mistreatment on those who in fact can be rehabilitated.
If you are voting for a person to *uphold* the law it is not reasonable to vote for someone to *break* the law. That was one of my main points, and it seems like you’re not addressing my critical arguments.
Keep in mind that when I originally spoke of mistreatment, it was referring to Joe and his mistreatment of female prisoners re: web cameras of them in compromising situations. Absolutely not all of these women were beyond the hope of rehabilitation, and thus they *cannot* fit in your model. Yet your response was that “incarceration does imply mistreatment” – a statement about your theoretical model. Perhaps your statement holds true in your ideal hypothetical prison system, but what about how things *actually* are? I would like to see more discussion of what *is* and what we can do about how things are and less talk about
Anyway, even though I understood you meant this mistreatment should (or could) be applied to the “hopeless cases” in your model, I was forced to apply it to the “non-hopeless cases” because it seemed you had done so first. I discussed actual mistreatment, and in response you talked about hypothetical mistreatment. It’s convoluted logic and it’s not a logical reason to vote for Joe.
And about the judicial system – okay, good, so you have more to say about how you’d like the world to be, and I can’t disagree with your thoughts on how it “should” be. But this has very little to do with a vote for Joe. All my arguments relate back to Joe because I am debating the logic behind voting for him. What are you trying to get across?
Just an aside on morality and punishment/mistreatment, my personal beliefs. About ethics, not the practical issue of the judicial system or Joe Arpaio, not about the Constitutional “right to life” or anything.
I believe those that recognize the value of life, and fully recognize the gravity of crimes that take away other people’s lives, are the ones who are more inclined to not want to contribute to taking the life of anyone. This does not describe myself, but I try to be more like this.
I’m pissed off that two idiotic teenagers killed a bunch of peaceful Buddhist monks that were family friends, and those fucktards should be put in jail. They shouldn’t have a good time. So they get rancid meat, big deal. They have to do hard labor, great. But we should not deny them food or water, we should not labor them until they are critically ill. Even if it costs us a little money. We spend money and time on stupider things than life and upholding morality.
In my view, we are punishing them for not respecting life and I do not believe it is right to act just as they did – it disrespects life in general, not their specific lives. It corrupts the morals we use to justify their punishment. I personally would not want to let the immorality of two people reduce my own morals. No matter how angry I am or how much I want to punish someone, I can’t let myself cross that line to wish to take their life, or even allow punishment that could contribute to their death.
They would be dead, and I would still be angry – but with compromised morals. And then the entire punishment would be fruitless – their same immorality would reign.
Oh, and also – I don’t believe there is anyone who does not have the potential to improve themselves, as the Dalai Lama said. It’s definitely a good thing, and I wouldn’t want to remove that from the world, even if indirectly through ‘mistreatment.’
Just an aside on morality and punishment/mistreatment, my personal beliefs. About ethics, not the practical issue of the judicial system or Joe Arpaio, not about the Constitutional “right to life” or anything.
I believe those that recognize the value of life, and fully recognize the gravity of crimes that take away other people’s lives, are the ones who are more inclined to not want to contribute to taking the life of anyone. This does not describe myself, but I try to be more like this.
I’m pissed off that two idiotic teenagers killed a bunch of peaceful Buddhist monks that were family friends, and those fucktards should be put in jail. They shouldn’t have a good time. So they get rancid meat, big deal. They have to do hard labor, great. But we should not deny them food or water, we should not labor them until they are critically ill. Even if it costs us a little money. We spend money and time on stupider things than life and upholding morality.
In my view, we are punishing them for not respecting life and I do not believe it is right to act just as they did – it disrespects life in general, not their specific lives. It corrupts the morals we use to justify their punishment. I personally would not want to let the immorality of two people reduce my own morals. No matter how angry I am or how much I want to punish someone, I can’t let myself cross that line to wish to take their life, or even allow punishment that could contribute to their death.
They would be dead, and I would still be angry – but with compromised morals. And then the entire punishment would be fruitless – their same immorality would reign.
Oh, and also – I don’t believe there is anyone who does not have the potential to improve themselves, as the Dalai Lama said. It’s definitely a good thing, and I wouldn’t want to remove that from the world, even if indirectly through ‘mistreatment.’
My views are even more radical than teels. “You have been found guilty” then someone walks over and breaks your neck, killing you instantly. For all crimes, except “sin” crimes. I also believe in legalization of drugs and prostitution, legalize them, regulate the use so it’s safe, and tax it. If the instant death sentence is too much, fine, you have 2 appeals, to be done within 14 months of your convition.
Then your killed, instantly.
Most people say “but what about the innocent guy that goes to jail”
I would rather kill 1 innocent man, to really drive home the point that crime is wrong.
your responce “What if it was someone you knew and loved”
Then I have some shit to deal with an a funeral to plan.
Crime, especially violent crime is wrong, you cant “cure” it, you can prevent it. There are 2 ways to cause prevention, fear and compassion. Compassion isent working, so lets try fear.
My views are even more radical than teels. “You have been found guilty” then someone walks over and breaks your neck, killing you instantly. For all crimes, except “sin” crimes. I also believe in legalization of drugs and prostitution, legalize them, regulate the use so it’s safe, and tax it. If the instant death sentence is too much, fine, you have 2 appeals, to be done within 14 months of your convition.
Then your killed, instantly.
Most people say “but what about the innocent guy that goes to jail”
I would rather kill 1 innocent man, to really drive home the point that crime is wrong.
your responce “What if it was someone you knew and loved”
Then I have some shit to deal with an a funeral to plan.
Crime, especially violent crime is wrong, you cant “cure” it, you can prevent it. There are 2 ways to cause prevention, fear and compassion. Compassion isent working, so lets try fear.
I am a little more liberal than that, Zoe, but that reminds me one of the things I forgot to put in my post; 100% of people put into the prison system should be permanently, irreversibly sterilized. They should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to reproduce.
Prevention, but not in that “killing people” way that liberals seems to equate to “murder” even when it’s just “justice”. Really, sterilization comes close to my position on abortions, too, since I think that the whole abortion issue could be prevented if a cheap, reversible form of sterilization were available/mandatory to unlicensed breeders.
And yeah, I sortof covered this in my post on Libertarianism where I said I agreed with their positions, but I also support the decriminalization of drug use, what the Libertatians seem to be calling “ending Prohibition“.
I read recently that 63% of the prisoners in Arizona prisons were there on drug-related charges, and I feel that decriminalizing drug use would probably end most prison overcrowding at the same time. Obviously other crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or in pursuit of money for drugs should still be prosecuted, but drugs themselves should be handled like the already over-the-counter drugs like tobacco and alcohol and caffeine.
ANd now I sleep.
I am a little more liberal than that, Zoe, but that reminds me one of the things I forgot to put in my post; 100% of people put into the prison system should be permanently, irreversibly sterilized. They should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to reproduce.
Prevention, but not in that “killing people” way that liberals seems to equate to “murder” even when it’s just “justice”. Really, sterilization comes close to my position on abortions, too, since I think that the whole abortion issue could be prevented if a cheap, reversible form of sterilization were available/mandatory to unlicensed breeders.
And yeah, I sortof covered this in my post on Libertarianism where I said I agreed with their positions, but I also support the decriminalization of drug use, what the Libertatians seem to be calling “ending Prohibition“.
I read recently that 63% of the prisoners in Arizona prisons were there on drug-related charges, and I feel that decriminalizing drug use would probably end most prison overcrowding at the same time. Obviously other crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or in pursuit of money for drugs should still be prosecuted, but drugs themselves should be handled like the already over-the-counter drugs like tobacco and alcohol and caffeine.
ANd now I sleep.
WHAT ON EARTH DOES JOE ARPAIO HAVE TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS??
Theoretical views on the way punishment “should” be inflicted has nothing to do with the ability of an elected law enforcement official to carry out his duty: to enforce the law as it is written, to prevent crime, to incarcerate criminals
Anyway, to Newtron Dance:
I find your point of view to be sad, if not illogical.
First of all, instant death for all crimes? To revel in such brutality may, indeed, be quite human of you – but it is also quite inhumane and disturbing.
Secondly, I’d like to know *specifically* how you’d go about getting one of those two appeals through the judicial system within 14 months, let alone both of them. I imagine appeals would skyrocket, given that everyone convicted is sentenced to death.
Thirdly, what, specifically, do you mean by the statement that “crime is wrong.” How is it wrong? Which crimes? What do you define as “wrong” in your set of ethics? Is it not “as” wrong to kill an innocent person, so long as a bunch of guilty people are killed along with him/her? This is a moral puzzle that you must justify, once you bring ethics into the equation. You can’t ignore the “wrongness” of one act but emphasize the “wrongness” of other acts simply because it is convenient. Perhaps a point system? Negative twenty moral points for killing innocent persons, positive 5 moral points for killing guilty persons? A positive end score is regarded as moral? I’d like some clarification.
Violent crime is difficult to prevent, as it’s hard to predict when and where crimes of passion are going to occur. And it has consistently been shown that the death penalty, or fear of this form of punishment, does *not* deter violent crime, premeditated or otherwise.
I’m not sure how compassion prevents murderers from murdering, either. I don’t think human emotion such as fear or compassion is necessarily the crux of prevention so much as more specific, tangible things – like a bunch of police serving to prevent crime.
WHAT ON EARTH DOES JOE ARPAIO HAVE TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS??
Theoretical views on the way punishment “should” be inflicted has nothing to do with the ability of an elected law enforcement official to carry out his duty: to enforce the law as it is written, to prevent crime, to incarcerate criminals
Anyway, to Newtron Dance:
I find your point of view to be sad, if not illogical.
First of all, instant death for all crimes? To revel in such brutality may, indeed, be quite human of you – but it is also quite inhumane and disturbing.
Secondly, I’d like to know *specifically* how you’d go about getting one of those two appeals through the judicial system within 14 months, let alone both of them. I imagine appeals would skyrocket, given that everyone convicted is sentenced to death.
Thirdly, what, specifically, do you mean by the statement that “crime is wrong.” How is it wrong? Which crimes? What do you define as “wrong” in your set of ethics? Is it not “as” wrong to kill an innocent person, so long as a bunch of guilty people are killed along with him/her? This is a moral puzzle that you must justify, once you bring ethics into the equation. You can’t ignore the “wrongness” of one act but emphasize the “wrongness” of other acts simply because it is convenient. Perhaps a point system? Negative twenty moral points for killing innocent persons, positive 5 moral points for killing guilty persons? A positive end score is regarded as moral? I’d like some clarification.
Violent crime is difficult to prevent, as it’s hard to predict when and where crimes of passion are going to occur. And it has consistently been shown that the death penalty, or fear of this form of punishment, does *not* deter violent crime, premeditated or otherwise.
I’m not sure how compassion prevents murderers from murdering, either. I don’t think human emotion such as fear or compassion is necessarily the crux of prevention so much as more specific, tangible things – like a bunch of police serving to prevent crime.
Yeah, I covered that with my last sentence, “As far as voting for Arpaio goes, I don’t think I’ve covered that here, but I’ll try to make some time for that later.”
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but it isn’t as though I’ve forgotten about it or dismissed it and just started making other posts – this is still the most recent one here. I just haven’t had time to write anything lately, and I won’t for at least another week or more. I’m going to go make a post about being gone, but since it’s been over a week since my last post, who’s going to notice another week?
But here’s some more tiny glimpses of my thought processes on the subject I’ve been posting about (a little bit about Arpaio, since you care about him so much):
As far as upholding the law goes, I believe that when voters are not able to sufficiently change the laws to reflect their beliefs, it is their duty to put people into elected positions that will ignore the laws on the books and carry out the will of the people. That then, when the few who agree with the way the old laws are written sue the elected officials, if the judicial system worked, it would follow the will and voice of the people to modify the interpretation of the law, and perhaps make apparent the people’s desire for new laws.
The fact that Arpaio has been sheriff going as far back as I can remember (about sheriffs, anyway) seems to mean that he has been elected and re-elected over and over again for a long time which, to me, seems to mean that the people agree with his methods and disagree with the laws you say he is “breaking”. I interpret this as the will of the people to ingore/remove those laws.
Yeah, I covered that with my last sentence, “As far as voting for Arpaio goes, I don’t think I’ve covered that here, but I’ll try to make some time for that later.”
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but it isn’t as though I’ve forgotten about it or dismissed it and just started making other posts – this is still the most recent one here. I just haven’t had time to write anything lately, and I won’t for at least another week or more. I’m going to go make a post about being gone, but since it’s been over a week since my last post, who’s going to notice another week?
But here’s some more tiny glimpses of my thought processes on the subject I’ve been posting about (a little bit about Arpaio, since you care about him so much):
As far as upholding the law goes, I believe that when voters are not able to sufficiently change the laws to reflect their beliefs, it is their duty to put people into elected positions that will ignore the laws on the books and carry out the will of the people. That then, when the few who agree with the way the old laws are written sue the elected officials, if the judicial system worked, it would follow the will and voice of the people to modify the interpretation of the law, and perhaps make apparent the people’s desire for new laws.
The fact that Arpaio has been sheriff going as far back as I can remember (about sheriffs, anyway) seems to mean that he has been elected and re-elected over and over again for a long time which, to me, seems to mean that the people agree with his methods and disagree with the laws you say he is “breaking”. I interpret this as the will of the people to ingore/remove those laws.