Are we causing most of our problems?

[kvnchrist]

1. Rape would not change, but prostitution should still be legal so it is safer.

 

2. It might have a decrease, but all drugs need to be legal to completely destory the criminal market.

 

3. Too many humans try to fit into groups. If we can't change that bigotry will always exist.

 

The answer to dealing with bad people who will never be able to be rehabilitated is to separate them from society, not punish them.

 

You don't think criminals should be punished for their crimes? Lets try this one on for size then...... I wouldn't mind seeing the "three strikes and yer out" laws taken a step further. Get that third strike, and WE take YOU out. You are done. No longer a problem. And NOT a tax burden either. Why should my taxes pay for three hots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day.

 

Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded.

What is the logic in punishment?

 

Is there any real point in punishing criminals?

 

 

What's the logic in nopt punishing them. Have you ever known a victim of a crime. How do they feel about that?

[Flintlockecole]

1. Rape would not change, but prostitution should still be legal so it is safer.

 

2. It might have a decrease, but all drugs need to be legal to completely destory the criminal market.

 

3. Too many humans try to fit into groups. If we can't change that bigotry will always exist.

 

The answer to dealing with bad people who will never be able to be rehabilitated is to separate them from society, not punish them.

 

You don't think criminals should be punished for their crimes? Lets try this one on for size then...... I wouldn't mind seeing the "three strikes and yer out" laws taken a step further. Get that third strike, and WE take YOU out. You are done. No longer a problem. And NOT a tax burden either. Why should my taxes pay for three hots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day.

 

Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded.

What is the logic in punishment?

 

Is there any real point in punishing criminals?

 

 

What's the logic in nopt punishing them. Have you ever known a victim of a crime. How do they feel about that?

As far as I'm concerned jail/prison does absolutely nothing to said criminals. Today's society is cold-blooded as is, "Throwing" out a few bad eggs shouldn't be of any concern.

[Aurielius]

Yes, yes there is. But the sad truth of it, without a shock, many won't learn the lesson. As an example, is someone has committed rape, I see one potential punishment that would most definitely teach a lesson to those that have considered it. And yes, I am prepared to take flak for this as "barbaric", but I don't see a problem with treating a monster in a monstrous way. In short, remove their unmentionables in a public forum. The shock through society will spread at the brutality of the act, and individuals that might have considered such an act will think twice. This is simply a thought, and yes, as stated, I understand there are those out there that will very much disagree with me.

 

A little extreme if I understand your unstated retributional punishment but no I won't critique you, though not likely to ever be implemented in any western country. However taking heinous criminals off the streets permanently does solve recidivism, some people through their own acts have forfeited their right to be in civil society ever again and I won't shed a tear for their incarceration or execution.

[SpellAndShield]

I've been contemplating this for a very long time. As all of you know, I am the product of a highly structured up-bringing, trying to fit myself into a much wider world. My trips in the military to other countries has opened my eyes to a wider, more tolerant world. The main thing that always strikes me is the overwhelming quagmire of repression in this country when anything of a sexual nature is brought up in public.

 

Most people, in private talk about a good many things, including sexual orientation, but when the discussion goes beyond a defined group of people the subject almost becomes toxic. This mindset has effected all walks of life and all age groups. The whole mindset has created such a strong sense of denial of reality that it has driven people underground and broken up families.

 

Always, I've heard the term Shame and Morales set up as some kind of a barricade in the discussion of topics that many are unwilling to address, because they are so stigmatized by such topics. I've heard, so many times, people talking about the repression of women in the middle east, because they hide their women in Burkas. Well, what's worse. The hiding of individual women in Burkas or the hiding of whole realms of expression, by making such topics Taboo.

 

I wonder if many of the problems that are so insurmountable would be so, If so many would stop denying that they even exist.

 

(1) Would there be as many rapes if Prostitution was legal. I know rape isn't about sex, but about power, but could it not help with those who can't seem to catch the eye of a lady

 

(2) Would there be so much drug violence and overcrowding in our prisons if the lesser drugs like marijuana and hash were decriminalized. Would it not help in the increasing revenues and our sagging economy?

 

(3) Would we have as many problems to solve if we were to except a wider degree of humanity (gays, transsexuals, foreigners), and above all, listen to what they have to say.

 

Is it fear of the unknown that defines our comfort zone or the fear that we might find just how delusional that area of comfort is.

 

That rape is about power is mythology, most rape is about sex. Look at the age of women who are raped; they are rarely over 35.

[Aurielius]

That rape is about power is mythology, most rape is about sex. Look at the age of women who are raped; they are rarely over 35.

Just curious can you back this up with something that is more than just anecdotal? Not attacking your thesis but it runs contrary to current thinking so a study might help in my view.

[HeyYou]

Why should my taxes pay for three shots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day.

 

Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded.

 

You are not only paying for a cot for some killer. Your tax also pays for the life insurance of those who are getting sentenced innocently or without due process in an imperfect legal/judicial system. If you have doubts, look up the statistics about people sentenced to death/long prison terms and released subsequently because investigation revealed a case of wrongful conviction (sometimes wrongful to the extent that it can be labelled as a travesty of justice). Fabricated evidence, biased or corrupt judges/jurors, negligence, being framed successfully for a crime one did not commit... all these factors can and do ruin lives. If you feel uncomfortable spending money on prisons and prisoners convicted for violent crimes (rape, murder, etc.), try to think about it in a different way: you probably have some sort of insurance against theft, damages to your property, medical insurance and so on. You are willing to pay to guard yourself against events that are not very likely to happen so you might as well think about the portion of your tax payment spent on prisons and inmates as your own life insurance against a possible miscarriage of justice. (Yes, I know, people usually delude themselves that the chances are so negligible it won't happen to them - then, when it does happen, they cry out "Oh, God, why me?").

 

Also, as other people have already stated, the severity of punishments is not correlated to crime rates. If it were, murder would be non existent in countries where death penalty still exists, and would be rampant elsewhere. This is not the case. Demanding severe punishments is usually a handy tool for politicians to whip up support for their goals (getting elected/re-elected, etc.). Unfortunately, increasing the severity of punishment is an easy answer that appeals to the voters' demand for justice because the real answer (strains caused by competitive existence, perceived inability to live up to the accepted standards of the society, feeling of entitlement or the 'I can get away with it' syndrome, skewed perception of the other sex caused by bad upbringing (or the lack of upbringing), etc.), or rather the answer that is closer to reality, could be seen as waffling or indecisiveness/leniency towards criminals.

 

 

 

 

Interesting perspective. :D

 

There will never be a 'perfect' justice system. (and calling it 'justice' in the first place is laughable....... plea bargains have seen to that.) Given that premise, yes, a very small percentage will be wrongly convicted. But, will they gather their three strikes? Not likely.

 

I am also not suggesting harsh punishment as a deterrent to crime, I am putting it forward as a cost saving measure.

[SpellAndShield]

That rape is about power is mythology, most rape is about sex. Look at the age of women who are raped; they are rarely over 35.

Just curious can you back this up with something that is more than just anecdotal? Not attacking your thesis but it runs contrary to current thinking so a study might help in my view.

 

Sure. Rape is a natural occuring phenomenon in primates, and is an advantageous means of propagating one's DNA (not speaking of its ethics). Orangutans also engage in rape. The motivation to rape is thus sexual (the desire to spread one's seed as it were). The famous Ghengis Khan effect attests to this:

An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

 

Not all of this was the result of rape of course but a goodly number of it was.

 

But the latest daffy Darwinist attempt to explain male bad behavior is not quite so amusing. Rape, according to evolutionary theorists Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, represents just another seed-spreading technique favored by natural selection. Sure it's nasty, brutish and short on foreplay. But it gets the job done.

 

Thornhill and Palmer aren't endorsing rape, of course. In their article in the latest issue of the Sciences--which is already generating a high volume of buzz although their book, A Natural History of Rape, won't be out until April--they say they just want to correct the feminist fallacy that "rape is not about sex," it's about violence and domination. The authors argue, among other things, that since the majority of victims are women of childbearing age, the motive must be lust and the intent, however unconscious, must be to impregnate. Hence rape is not an act of pathology, but a venerable old strategy for procreation. What's "natural" isn't always nice.

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,38013,00.html

 

Most evolutionary psychologists agree with this thesis; rape is a short and efficient way of passing on one's genes. Feminism almost never employs science to back up its claims but we have grown so accustomed to accepting what we have been told that something like this 'seems' shocking even though it is much more grounded in science than what feminists claim.

 

"that's a common misconception put forth by the feminist lobby. In fact, there are plenty of men who rape because they can't get laid.

 

"Look up dolphin rape. It's some weird, creepy s***. It's a biological imperative to pass along your genes (and before you say that there are plenty of people without kids, I'll counter with there are very few people who don't have sex, the only biological purpose of which is to have kids). Males who cannot find willing partners resort to other means.

 

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2011/03/rape_isnt_just_about_power_its.php

 

So in effect most often rape is the tool of a low DH (dominance hierarchy) male who cannot achieve sex through socially accepted means (status, power, finances), sure there are men who rape because of power but once again the overwhelming number of female victims are young, not old, which further supports the thesis of rape usually being about sex (or rather the inability to obtain it through normal means).

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Natural-History-Rape-Biological-Coercion/dp/0262201259/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

 

This book is highly informative on the subject.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Stardusk

[marharth]

1. Rape would not change, but prostitution should still be legal so it is safer.

 

2. It might have a decrease, but all drugs need to be legal to completely destory the criminal market.

 

3. Too many humans try to fit into groups. If we can't change that bigotry will always exist.

 

The answer to dealing with bad people who will never be able to be rehabilitated is to separate them from society, not punish them.

 

You don't think criminals should be punished for their crimes? Lets try this one on for size then...... I wouldn't mind seeing the "three strikes and yer out" laws taken a step further. Get that third strike, and WE take YOU out. You are done. No longer a problem. And NOT a tax burden either. Why should my taxes pay for three hots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day.

 

Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded.

What is the logic in punishment?

 

Is there any real point in punishing criminals?

 

 

What's the logic in nopt punishing them. Have you ever known a victim of a crime. How do they feel about that?

So punish people for revenge? Revenge is not logical. That makes both the victim and the criminal bad people in my eyes. Just because your emotions say you want to hurt them back, does not instantly make it OK.

 

If we started locking people up based on what the opposing party felt, everyone every charged with something would be spending years in prison.

 

So quite honestly, I don't care what the victim FEELS. I care about what the crime, and the motivation of the crime. I do not care about the emotions the victim or the criminal feel.

 

@Stardusk

 

People commonly make the argument the rape is good for passing genes, but it is the opposite. People who commit rape are out of the social norm, and have mental issues. Passing on the genes of someone with mental issues is not a good way to help the human gene pool.

 

"female victims are young, not old, which further supports the thesis of rape usually being about sex (or rather the inability to obtain it through normal means)."

 

Not really true, that is simply because a man would prefer to have sex with someone who is attractive. If its rape, the power thing is still there. The man just prefer to do such a thing with someone who is attractive.

Edited July 14, 2011 by marharth

[HeyYou]

1. Rape would not change, but prostitution should still be legal so it is safer.

 

2. It might have a decrease, but all drugs need to be legal to completely destory the criminal market.

 

3. Too many humans try to fit into groups. If we can't change that bigotry will always exist.

 

The answer to dealing with bad people who will never be able to be rehabilitated is to separate them from society, not punish them.

 

You don't think criminals should be punished for their crimes? Lets try this one on for size then...... I wouldn't mind seeing the "three strikes and yer out" laws taken a step further. Get that third strike, and WE take YOU out. You are done. No longer a problem. And NOT a tax burden either. Why should my taxes pay for three hots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day.

 

Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded.

What is the logic in punishment?

 

Is there any real point in punishing criminals?

 

 

What's the logic in nopt punishing them. Have you ever known a victim of a crime. How do they feel about that?

So punish people for revenge? Revenge is not logical. That makes both the victim and the criminal bad people in my eyes. Just because your emotions say you want to hurt them back, does not instantly make it OK.

 

If we started locking people up based on what the opposing party felt, everyone every charged with something would be spending years in prison.

 

So quite honestly, I don't care what the victim FEELS. I care about what the crime, and the motivation of the crime. I do not care about the emotions the victim or the criminal feel.

 

@Stardusk

 

People commonly make the argument the rape is good for passing genes, but it is the opposite. People who commit rape are out of the social norm, and have mental issues. Passing on the genes of someone with mental issues is not a good way to help the human gene pool.

 

"female victims are young, not old, which further supports the thesis of rape usually being about sex (or rather the inability to obtain it through normal means)."

 

Not really true, that is simply because a man would prefer to have sex with someone who is attractive. If its rape, the power thing is still there. The man just prefer to do such a thing with someone who is attractive.

 

According to popular theory, it isn't about 'revenge', it is about 'justice'. Of course, given that plea bargains seem to be the rule of the day, I can't say folks are getting much justice either........ When a man that rapes teenaged girls for THREE YEARS gets off with five years in prison, that is a miscarriage of justice. If I had my way, he would have his testicles cut off, and be publicly flogged, dragged thru a pit of ground glass, and tossed into a tank of salt water. (yes, I have a dim view of this guy.....) Then, I might consider taking him out of his misery, with a bullet in the brain.

 

Crime MUST have some punishment, if it didn't, there would be zero motivation NOT to do it, and the crime rate would be absolutely phenomenal. A fair few folks would commit various crimes, if they thought they wouldn't be punished for it, since there IS that chance, they don't do it. Remove that particular deterrent, and they would happily run right out, and do whatever.

[marharth]

1. Rape would not change, but prostitution should still be legal so it is safer.

 

2. It might have a decrease, but all drugs need to be legal to completely destory the criminal market.

 

3. Too many humans try to fit into groups. If we can't change that bigotry will always exist.

 

The answer to dealing with bad people who will never be able to be rehabilitated is to separate them from society, not punish them.

 

You don't think criminals should be punished for their crimes? Lets try this one on for size then...... I wouldn't mind seeing the "three strikes and yer out" laws taken a step further. Get that third strike, and WE take YOU out. You are done. No longer a problem. And NOT a tax burden either. Why should my taxes pay for three hots and a cot for some killer? Whack his ass dead. End of problem. And no 10, 15, 20, 25 years of appeals either. You get ONE appeal after conviction. If that is upheld, you are DEAD the next day.

 

Yeah, I am pretty cold blooded.

What is the logic in punishment?

 

Is there any real point in punishing criminals?

 

 

What's the logic in nopt punishing them. Have you ever known a victim of a crime. How do they feel about that?

So punish people for revenge? Revenge is not logical. That makes both the victim and the criminal bad people in my eyes. Just because your emotions say you want to hurt them back, does not instantly make it OK.

 

If we started locking people up based on what the opposing party felt, everyone every charged with something would be spending years in prison.

 

So quite honestly, I don't care what the victim FEELS. I care about what the crime, and the motivation of the crime. I do not care about the emotions the victim or the criminal feel.

 

@Stardusk

 

People commonly make the argument the rape is good for passing genes, but it is the opposite. People who commit rape are out of the social norm, and have mental issues. Passing on the genes of someone with mental issues is not a good way to help the human gene pool.

 

"female victims are young, not old, which further supports the thesis of rape usually being about sex (or rather the inability to obtain it through normal means)."

 

Not really true, that is simply because a man would prefer to have sex with someone who is attractive. If its rape, the power thing is still there. The man just prefer to do such a thing with someone who is attractive.

 

According to popular theory, it isn't about 'revenge', it is about 'justice'. Of course, given that plea bargains seem to be the rule of the day, I can't say folks are getting much justice either........ When a man that rapes teenaged girls for THREE YEARS gets off with five years in prison, that is a miscarriage of justice. If I had my way, he would have his testicles cut off, and be publicly flogged, dragged thru a pit of ground glass, and tossed into a tank of salt water. (yes, I have a dim view of this guy.....) Then, I might consider taking him out of his misery, with a bullet in the brain.

 

Crime MUST have some punishment, if it didn't, there would be zero motivation NOT to do it, and the crime rate would be absolutely phenomenal. A fair few folks would commit various crimes, if they thought they wouldn't be punished for it, since there IS that chance, they don't do it. Remove that particular deterrent, and they would happily run right out, and do whatever.

"Crime MUST have some punishment, if it didn't, there would be zero motivation NOT to do it, and the crime rate would be absolutely phenomenal. A fair few folks would commit various crimes, if they thought they wouldn't be punished for it, since there IS that chance, they don't do it. Remove that particular deterrent, and they would happily run right out, and do whatever."

 

No, that is not even close to true.

 

Studies have been done many times to prove the opposite. You wouldn't go on a murdering raping spree if laws did not exist would you?

 

People who commit crimes do not think they will get caught.

 

What is the difference between justice and revenge? Justice just sounds prettier.