2
   

Removing criminals from society without going to their level

 
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2003 11:29 pm
Whew. It starts out sounding good, Craven, but there are so many problems... could they really be kept there securely... isn't it cruel & (surely) unusual punishment... what about any children (Though birth control of some sort could be managed, I'd think)... wouldn't we have some fool TV show dropping down to give the viewers a thrill?

It makes me think of that BBC show where the group lived on an island off Scotland for a year. Some of them loved it, some hated it. In a way, this "punishment" would give a prisoner a second chance and is therefore a kindness of sorts. Maybe as an alternative to full time incarceration in a prison?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 01:14 am
In my fantasy they have no special treatment whatsoever. If they get sick they have to learn to deal with it without any support from the society they were bansihed from.

They can have books etc to teach them but no doctor.

They can watch TV isf they learn to build their own sets and satelite dishes.

And of course only montrous criiminals gothere. Serial killers and serial rapists.

I don't think we would simply be removing the blood by a degree, the colony is supposed to be big enough so that they can live without seeing another human if they choose (this is in the planet version of it). The whole idea is that they would not be in our care at all and what they make of their society is their responsibility.

People die in prisons all the time BTW, and many are not "hardcore" criminals.

Another thing, the type of crimes that would merit this punishment is usually commited by people who aren't the "bosses" in prisons.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 03:22 am
It IS?

Where do you get that from?

Murderers and rapists do well in prison - there for a long time - get kudos for that - as long as they haven't raped kids, just women....



Edit: er....that is probably irelevant to the argument.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 08:19 am
OK - I think I am figuring out my objections to this whole idea.

1. Because we are a much smaller country,
2. and because we imprison, I believe, less than you do -
3.and because we have, of course, no death penalty -
4.and only a teeeny weeny number of people in prison without hope of parole (and that keeps being challenged) -
5. and because we are more inclined to have shorter sentences -
6. (and prolly cos I have worked in the system and have come to know these people - {though not many of the type of people you speak of} - and they are people to me, not an abstraction) -

therefore:

I cannot visualise having the numbers of people in such a category that would compel thinking about such a "final solution", nor can I imagine leaving people with no medical etc support and being subject to the sort of savagery that would occur.

(Although it would be interesting to see just what society WOULD occur - probably much like a gang of juvenile delinquents, I surmise, with a rigid, but challengeable leadership, which offered protection and some emotional affirmation for group members - although just how the sexual element would play out in such a group of isolated men is spooky - prolly how it does in prison - with protection for weaker folk in return for sex - and maybe some real and intense relationships - but I digress...I am assuming people WILL find each other - we are a grouping animal.)



Also: Craven - you rejected my argument that we were just distancing the blood from our hands a little - but - given the number of these folk who would die in all sorts of ways - how does your idea differ from simply conducting a lottery amongst the category of prisoner you nominate - and killing all those who draw odds, or some other pre-determined criterion? Or from just making people endure some sort of physically awful test that will kill a lot of them?


Arguments against mine:

a .prison is horrible and brutalising, too.
b .lots of people die in prison, or contract deadly diseases
c. you are coming from a base where a likely alternative is that the state kills these folk anyway - (but it is likely to be a less painful death) - which is an alternative I cannot make real to myself.
d. it seems lots of folk in your systen really do rot in prison for life - this is also unreal to me, so I am probably not really cognizant of the horror of the current reality for many prisoners

I think I have probably said enough for now!
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 09:18 am
In thinking about this... if I were under sentence of life without possibility of parole, or this... I would prefer banishment. At least I would be free.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 09:22 am
Yes - that is something I forgot - didn't I...
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 09:25 am
True, Piffka. I'm thinking that one of the major deterrent factors of prison is the loss of autonomy -- not only being locked within four walls, but having no choice as to when to eat, or shower, or go to bed, or anything. Having that freedom, even with attendant dangers, could quite possibly be preferable.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 12:01 pm
It has been shown that some cold blooded murderers have no sense of emotion. If they are a threat to society, there is no choice but to incarcerate them for the rest of their natural life. How they are 'treated' in prison is the matter for the prison system to determine - which should depend on the safety of the guards and other prisoners. Beyond that, they should only abe allowed subsistence life with no luxuries. Idea c.i.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 01:22 pm
Deb the reason I reject the once removed blood on hands argument is because we have no responsibility for what they do on their island/planet if you want to feel responsible then by the same logic you must feel blood on your hands if they are allowed to stay and they kill someone in society.

Now how would your moral opinion differ if we are talking a planet the size of earth which would make it very hard for them to find each other.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 04:07 pm
No responsibility when we know what they like to do? Hmmmmmmm........but I take your point.

If definitely isolated they would be lonely!

Ok - I guess I would have to base my moral decision on utilitarianism - taking into account some real knowledge of the what the prisoners wanted and the differing levels of suffering in prison, or living/dying with the death penalty (assuming you guys are gonna keep it) vs the banishment planet. I had not taken into account what might be the lure of freedom - (not having seen the average long-termer as a bucolic creature enamoured of chlorophyll and wittle fuzzy animals).

Upon analysis of all the information I could find to base a decision on, I would decide in favour of the greatest good to greatest number. If this analysis (imperfect as all human analysis is - but hey, we gotta make moral choices) indicated your planet as the best option all round, then I would go with it.

However, I am now very worried about the poor planet upon which you intend to dump these folk!!! What about the ecology? What about the wild-life? One assumes there is no highly intelligent life-form - but what about the prime directive!
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 04:44 pm
Bunny has too many questions, let's send her to the planet. ;-)

A few points:

They can always give themselves the death sentence if they don't like their punishment.

Ecology be damned! They will likely be too stupid to hurt the ecology. Plus the planet is of our creation (I so don't wanna explain my whole daydream/fantasy!) and has no animals.

As to lonliness that's the point. They are banished from society. You dovish types complain about incarceration, capital punishment, solitude, and just about every mechjanism man has invented to fight crime. Then you also dislike crime.

Ya know, there is gonna have to be something in the equation that goes against your grain. It's inevitable.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 04:58 pm
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 05:07 pm
~:> p

Why don't you wanna explain your fantasy?

You expect us to give consent for you to go isolating all these people on some poor planet - and you won't even tell us about it!

No animals? What does it have for protein? Any walking plants? Is it temperate? Not an ICE planet, I hope! Or a burning desert!

How many moons? A few moons would be neat. What about at least one blue moon! How long is a year? Is it tilted, does it have seasons? Is there good fruit? Why would there be fruit with no animals to pollinate - hmm, wind pollination - is it too windy? Are there nice rees to climb? Is there a plant they can make clothes from when it gets cold - if there are seasons? WHY are there no animals? I wike animals!!! What, no Cheeta, Jungle Jim's beloved animal comapnion? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 05:07 pm
Well, they can't afford that and it's cheaper to kill 'em here. :-)

You really like death as a punishment huh? I admit it's simple but that's part of my argument against it.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 05:08 pm
Stupid people hurt ecologies all the time!!!
0 Replies
 
Booman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 05:08 pm
Y'know?...I posted before that if a person committed a heinous crime against one of my family members, I would eventually evolve from a desire to a desire to rot in jail. And there is still a modicum of guilt in me for wishing life inprisonment for them. I 'm glad it's there. I don't want to become the type of person I hate. My main reasons for imprisonment, should be protecting society from them, and/or rehabilitation.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 05:11 pm
Bunny,

I don't wanna explain ,my fantasy because it involves too much to explain, it's been running for over 5 years now.

Re protein: soy

Re moons: There will be one moon per criminal.

Re blue moon: ok, one animal, a baboon.

re polination: it can be done by humans, I once spent a day pollinating apple trees.

why no animals? Because the animals have commited no crime.

They will take seeds with them so they can plant whta they want.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 05:12 pm
Bunny,
Stupid people can't do much ecological damage without toys made by smart people. When you are grounded you don't get to have toys.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 05:21 pm
Not even wittle corn-cob dollies?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2003 05:25 pm
They can make them if they want.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/29/2021 at 02:51:59