News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[DanP]

Is there a species which doesn't kill their own?

Most species don't afaik

 

[nismaratwork]

Most species don't afaik

Sorry DanP, animals kill each other a lot, but it's mostly infanticide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology )

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912086,00.html

http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/viewFile/936/961

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W9W-45FK6K4-43&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1437488176&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b32a00b7720f5adeee3c2c338206c999

I could go on for pages, from crocodiles, all the way through apes and monkeys.


@Dudelysharp: There are several reasons why many criminals don't believe that they'll be caught, or rather, held accountable for their crimes. Let's start small, with serial DUI offenders; we cannot pretend to know what they think, but check the statistics for recidivist DUI and see for yourself. You have people such as car thieves whom you can SEE ON CAMERA in bait-car operations, believing they've gotten away with something, and the disbelief when the engine shuts off and sirens come on. Then, on the extreme end you have the .5-1% of the population that is comprised of sociopaths, who simply do not experience the kind of anxiety or forethought you seem to believe. A hallmark of the person with "antisocial personality disorder" (sociopath/psychopath) is impulsively self-destructive behavior, marked by an inability to appreciate the consequences. Fear of being caught can exist with the belief that one will not be apprehended.

The reasons range from, "I've gotten away with this crime before, so I will again", through, "I NEED drugs, and my mind isn't terribly clear right now," "Only a small number of the total who commit X crime are caught and sentenced," to the extreme sociopath/psychopath: "I can commit the perfect crime."

 

[DanP]

Sorry DanP, animals kill each other a lot, but it's mostly infanticide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology )

I am well aware of this happening in several sepcies, however I do not think is as widespread as you believe. Hoever if you want to convince me otherwise, you could provide a percentage from the total number of species which does.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The percentage of all species which commit infanticide? That would be impossible to figure out. Looking at just rodents though (wikipedia has an article on them specifically, which suggests the percentage will probably be higher than normal I admit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_in_rodents

In fact it's at a point where someone decided it was worth writing an article discussing possible reasons for why one type of rodent would NOT kill pups
http://www.springerlink.com/content/tgdv8qp31bt312jd/

This suggests the behavior if very common in rodents

 

[Evo]

Evo, come on.

Are you not aware that criminals interact with more criminals in prison and that because of that criminals increase their knowledge to improve their trade - crime?

That prisoners hook up with other prisoners to continue criminal enterprise within prisons and later in the free world?

There are, sadly, countless cases of criminals getting much worse over time.

Are you not aware of those, without studies?

It's a violation of our guidelines to make a statement of fact without providing legitimate proof to back it up.

The member needs to show that the number of criminals that become more criminal while incarcerated outnumber the ones that become rehabilitated.

It's not my stand either way, I am holding to the guidelines.

You did read our guidelines? You need to read both the global guidelines and the Politics Guidelines. Links to both are in my signature.

 

[nismaratwork]

I am well aware of this happening in several sepcies, however I do not think is as widespread as you believe. Hoever if you want to convince me otherwise, you could provide a percentage from the total number of species which does.

Office_Shredder beat me to it... that would be a HUGE task that I'm not sure is possible. Your assertion that it's uncommon is probably the one requiring the burden of proof at this point. I'm finding it difficult to find animals, insects, and even plants that don't cannibalize or kill in competition.

This isn't an issue of several species, but whole families and more. ALL of the great cats and all crocodilians for example, will commit infanticide, as will every species of bear that I know of. I don't know if wolves will... I don't think so, however, they do sometimes kill each other in the course of fights for alpha status. Hell, lions who kill the cubs of the previous leader don't even EAT the corpse, it's just a kill. Lions will also kill hyenas, but not eat them, probably for the sake of direct competition for food. Dolphin pods kill sharks, and not for food, despite the fact that sharks don't hunt dolphins. There are more examples... Murder, in one form or another, is so common that if you want to discredit the notion, it's on you to find a significant portion of animals (carnivores/omnivores) which DON'T kill their own.

 

[ThomasT]

For some crimes, it seems the death penalty is not punishment enough. I am for the death penalty in cases, such as this, where there is no question of guilt. But I also agree that in these cases, the death penalty should be carried out immediately after sentencing

Would you agree or disagree with the death penalty in a case such as this?

Yes, I agree that the death penalty is warranted in cases such as this where there's compelling evidence. Should this be carried out immediately? No. I don't think that's a good idea. But it certainly shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 years. The practical reason for executing these sorts of felons is that there's no technology for changing their behavior in a free society, so returning them to the society at large is problematic, and simply keeping them imprisoned and alive is an unnecessary expenditure of resources. So, while we might allow a few years for advocates of convicted felons to explore possibilities of their innocence, anything beyond that is a perversion of the notion of the "rights of the accused". This wasn't always the case, but I think it is now.

Cases where the objective evidence isn't compelling (as well as crimes of passion and crimes of need) should be treated a bit differently I think. Our criminal justice system no doubt commits a certain percentage of accused felons to long prison terms, and death, on questionable evidence.

Anyway, in cases like the one you've noted, given the preponderance of evidence, I don't see any reason to allow these people to live.

Wrt preventing this sort of thing, it's important that people realize that their personal safety is, ultimately, their own responsibility.

 

[DanP]

Office_Shredder beat me to it... that would be a HUGE task that I'm not sure is possible. Your assertion that it's uncommon is probably the one requiring the burden of proof at this point.

Lions will also kill hyenas, but not eat them, probably for the sake of direct competition for food. Dolphin pods kill sharks, and not for food, despite the fact that sharks don't hunt dolphins.

Actually, I really don't care. I am not asking you to proof this, but a way to convince me would be to provide the data I asked :P Ill retain my stance until further information regarding whatever or not a significant percentage of animals kill their own will surface in one way or another, but ill classify my position as questionable till then.
Its not important to the discussion anyway of death penalty.

 

[skeptic2]

Is your statetment "Incarceration of criminals, often results in the criminal becoming worse not better" just your own opinion then? If not, you will need to provide studies that support your claim. Thanks.

The following is from the Solicitor General Canada.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm

From the discussion section of this paper:
The data in this study represents the only quantitative assessment of the relationship between time spent in prison and offender recidivism. The database consisted of 325 comparisons involving 336,052 offenders. On the basis of the results, we can put forth one conclusion with a good deal of confidence. None of the analysis conducted produced any evidence that prison sentences reduce recidivism. Indeed, combining the data from the more vs. less and incarceration vs. community groupings resulted in 4% (f ) and 2% (z±) increases in recidivism.

and...
What are the possible policy implications emanating from this study? There are, in our view, two viable recommendations. Prisons should not be used with the expectation of reducing future criminal activity. If further research supports the findings described herein, that time in prison increases offender recidivism by even "small" amounts, then the costs accruing from the excessive use of prison could be enormous. For example, even percentage changes of approximately 5% have resulted in significant cost implications in medicine and other areas of human services (Hunt, 1997). In the criminal justice field it is estimated that the criminal career of just one high-risk offender "costs" approximately $1,000,000 (see Cohen, 1997). Arguably, increases in recidivism of even a "fractional" amount are not fiscally responsible, especially given the high incarceration rates currently in vogue in North America. One should also bear in mind that even the most enthusiastic proponents of the utility of sanctions are not only quite sceptical about the use of prison but state, in no uncertain terms, that the deterrence literature in general is of limited use in formulating public crime control policy (Nagin, 1998).20

Therefore, the primary justification for use of prisons is incapacitation and retribution, both of which come with a "price", if prisons are used injudiciously. Locking up chronic high risk offenders for a reasonable period of time is not under debate; we can think of no one who disagrees with that policy. In order to lock up enough prisoners, however, to reduce crime rates by a few percentage points (see Gendreau & Ross, 1981) and to make prisons "pay" for themselves (DiIulio & Piehl, 1991), substantial "costs" will accrue to other government ministries or departments. Unless an infinite source of funds becomes available to governments, fewer expenditures will be directed to education and health care, amongst other things. As a case in point, money spent by states to keep inmates incarcerated recently has risen by 30% while spending on higher education dropped by 19%, and costs to keep a child in school represent a quarter of that required to lock up an offender (Dobbin, 1999).

 

[nismaratwork]

Actually, I really don't care. I am not asking you to proof this, but a way to convince me would be to provide the data I asked :P Ill retain my stance until further information regarding whatever or not a significant percentage of animals kill their own will surface in one way or another, but ill classify my position as questionable till then.



Its not important to the discussion anyway of death penalty.

Agreed, but it was a fun diversion.

 

[Proton Soup]

Do you think there is a question as to guilt in this case? If yes, what is the doubt?

in general, we tend to rely on law enforcement/prosecution for the official version of the "facts" in these cases. and while theoretically, prosecutors should be somewhat impassionate, we know they're not. for instance, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace" . she claims that her fiance's murder inspired her career. and if you've ever watched her show, it's hard to come away thinking she is, or ever was, rational. there would be an awful lot of hangings in a Nancy Grace world. but, it's not just her. even non-crime victims use the position of prosecutor, or DA, to propel themselves into a political career. prosecution then becomes a numbers game, and the most important thing is to present to the public that you got the bad guys. the people want to feel safe, and you had better deliver that feeling if you like the job.

now, perhaps the specific case at the beginning of the thread is "cut-and-dried", but even it could have problems. the biggest problem i would foresee is that it is a "gang". unless you've got clear, high-resolution video in broad daylight, how can you ever know exactly how many people were involved? it's fairly easy, perhaps even tempting, to just throw in one more who either may have never been at the scene or was at the scene but didn't get involved. perhaps you confused one person with someone else. maybe you even end up with scenarios where one person has consensual sex with the victim prior to the others getting involved and committing the actual crimes.


emotionally, I'm not so opposed to capital punishment. i could do the deed myself if i thought i knew for sure. but rationally, i know that evidence is rarely perfect, even when you think it is. and i know that prosecution tends to have questionable motives as well. so, because i know that we people are highly imperfect, and because i don't think it serves a good purpose beyond vengeance, i support life imprisonment, but not capital punishment.

 

[Ken Natton]

Dudley Sharp

I agree with you that the argument that the statistics of murder rates in death penalty and non death penalty jurisdictions demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the death penalty is based on spurious, simplistic logic. It is a little like the old joke about one-third of serious road accidents being caused by drunk drivers, therefore two-thirds are caused by sober drivers and so it is the sober drivers who should be taken off the roads. Of course there are many factors other than just the presence or absence of the death penalty that drive the murder rate statistics. But I see no stronger basis for your contention that the statistics prove the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. Indeed I would draw an all together much broader and more general conclusion from the statistics. I would generalise it to all crimes in all jurisdictions, including those in which, I think most contributors to this thread would accept, some penalties imposed for not so serious offenses constitute barbarism. I would suggest to you that all over the world, the incidence of any crime is no function whatever of the severity of the penalty for being convicted of committing that crime.

However, those death penalty statistics do hint at the possibility of a deeper, philosophical truth. It is true that non death penalty states dominate the lower murder rates and death penalty states dominate higher murder rates. It is just simplistic to conclude that the lower murder rates are a direct consequence of the absence of the death penalty. More likely is that the kind of society that abhors the death penalty is the kind of society that will have low murder rates, and vice versa.

There are several prominent and obvious examples in the world of societies that are or were dominated by the notion of ‘squaring the score’, and all of them demonstrate as clearly as can be what a destructive attitude it is. Always, they involve two sides that are equally convinced that it is they who hold the moral high ground and it is the other side that is guilty of great evil. The actions of the other side arouse great passion and a determination not to be cowed. And the logic of ‘squaring the score’ goes around its pointless, futile, destructive cycle. The end result for both sides is a society that is barely liveable and that places a low value on human life.

At the risk of setting this thread off in a direction I don’t really intend it to go, I would cite the Good Friday Agreement in Ireland as an example of the alternative. That agreement involved compromises for both sides that each found it extremely difficult to accept. Surely no serious, thoughtful person can doubt that the end result is to the benefit of the whole society, but it was an absolute pre-requisite for both sides to abandon the logic of ‘squaring the score’.

Doubtless some will question the relevance of this to the question of the death penalty, but its relevance is clear to me. What those who have argued for the death penalty on this thread have demonstrated is that such a viewpoint is based on that same logic. It is abundantly clear to me that the suggestion that criminal justice has any significant deterrent effect flies in the face of all the hard data. But I actually agree that deterrence is not what it is about. Neither is it really about rehabilitation. Understand, it seems to me to be essential that the possibility of rehabilitation is available to those who will take it, but experience has to teach us that the sad reality is that only a small proportion will. And that is not what criminal justice is about. Criminal justice is, primarily, about retribution and this whole debate moves forward when we all admit that – and it is a question of admitting it for many of the contributors. One of the functions of criminal justice that has not had much mention on this thread is specifically to prevent victims or family of victims seeking retribution of their own. It is vitally important that the perpetrator of crime is seen to be subjected to the retribution of criminal justice. But that criminal justice system must not lower itself to the level of the criminal. It must be dispassionate, it must be proportionate and it must not sink to the logic of ‘squaring the score’.

 

[vertices]

False implication.

It is certainly a fact that sociability, and conceptions of morality have a natural basis, but that this is part of human nature, too, does not in anyway make murder, rape, theft etc. into unnatural acts.

If you have difficulties with this, you might reflect upon Walt Whitman's words:

I would contend they are unnatural acts. Altruism implies we are hardwired to 'cooperate' (in game theory speak). It is irrational to murder, steal, etc. (ie. 'defect'). In the state of nature (again, game theory speak), ie. in the absence of situations that would make us behave irrationally, we would not commit crimes at all.

The question is what makes us act irrationally? Well, I think the answer lies in psychology - we have deep, psychological needs (for instance, to be loved, respected). If these needs are not met people shun social norms. There is definitely a casual link for instance, between rates of domestic/sexual abuse and incarceration. I'll try and find a link to a study...

 

[nismaratwork]

I would contend they are unnatural acts. Altruism implies we are hardwired to 'cooperate' (in game theory speak). It is irrational to murder, steal, etc. (ie. 'defect'). In the state of nature (again, game theory speak), ie. in the absence of situations that would make us behave irrationally, we would not commit crimes at all.

The question is what makes us act irrationally? Well, I think the answer lies in psychology - we have deep, psychological needs (for instance, to be loved, respected). If these needs are not met people shun social norms. There is definitely a casual link for instance, between rates of domestic/sexual abuse and incarceration. I'll try and find a link to a study...

Is it irrational for someone who is starving to steal food? I think your belief that all "negative" behavior is unnatural or abhorrent is deeply naive, bordering on religious. You talk about the absence of situations which cause irrationality, but life is comprised of a series of those situations for many people. In that context, many of the actions taken are not irrational, even if they are not always kind. You cannot ignore the nature of life in favor of a psychological theory that essentially all humans are deranged.

 

[vertices]

Is it irrational for someone who is starving to steal food? I think your belief that all "negative" behavior is unnatural or abhorrent is deeply naive, bordering on religious. You talk about the absence of situations which cause irrationality, but life is comprised of a series of those situations for many people. In that context, many of the actions taken are not irrational, even if they are not always kind. You cannot ignore the nature of life in favor of a psychological theory that essentially all humans are deranged.

If people cooperate with each other, the total payoff is higher compared to the situation where people, individually, act selfishly (even if there is short-term gain by acting this way). That is, if you repeatedly defect, you stand to lose your 'reputation' and this has serious consequences. So committing a 'crime' is essentially irrational because you stand to lose out in the long run.

Well, that's what game theory says anyway - but you are right, the state of nature is a very idealistic construct.

Ofcourse there will always be situations that drive people to commit crimes. What I am basically arguing is that we should look to find ways of stopping people having unmet needs, which is ultimately the reason why people commit crimes. In the case of people committing murder, these maybe unmet psychological needs.

So take for example a situation where you have this kid growing up in a really rough, inner city area who suffers physical abuse from his father every single day. Racial discrimination is rife, poverty is grinding. It stands to reason that this kid, with all the anxiety, stress and self esteem issues, is more likely to commit a crime himself. Concrete things the government can do to stop him becoming a future delinquent might include increasing social-service provision or strengthening racial discrimination legislation...

 

[DanP]

Concrete things the government can do to stop him becoming a future delinquent might include increasing social-service provision or strengthening racial discrimination legislation...

You cannot legislate morality. And tbh, it is my right as a individual to hate certain groups and act against them in a legal manner.

 

[DanP]

If people cooperate with each other, the total payoff is higher compared to the situation where people, individually, act selfishly (even if there is short-term gain by acting this way). That is, if you repeatedly defect, you stand to lose your 'reputation' and this has serious consequences. So committing a 'crime' is essentially irrational because you stand to lose out in the long run.

This is almost surreal what you say. Utopian. The world is built upon competition. From the moment you are born , through school, job interviews, career advancement. There is a lot of "knowing your best interest" involved, a lot of politics, social skills and you must understand and use them all to "advance".

 

[nismaratwork]

If people cooperate with each other, the total payoff is higher compared to the situation where people, individually, act selfishly (even if there is short-term gain by acting this way). That is, if you repeatedly defect, you stand to lose your 'reputation' and this has serious consequences. So committing a 'crime' is essentially irrational because you stand to lose out in the long run.

Well, that's what game theory says anyway - but you are right, the state of nature is a very idealistic construct.

Ofcourse there will always be situations that drive people to commit crimes. What I am basically arguing is that we should look to find ways of stopping people having unmet needs, which is ultimately the reason why people commit crimes. In the case of people committing murder, these maybe unmet psychological needs.

So take for example a situation where you have this kid growing up in a really rough, inner city area who suffers physical abuse from his father every single day. Racial discrimination is rife, poverty is grinding. It stands to reason that this kid, with all the anxiety, stress and self esteem issues, is more likely to commit a crime himself. Concrete things the government can do to stop him becoming a future delinquent might include increasing social-service provision or strengthening racial discrimination legislation...

I get it, you have a dream, but what in human history makes you believe that we're capable, as a society, of achieving the goals you seem to believe are norms?! I don't think it can be argued that your vision isn't a lovely one, I just think it should be presented as the ideal that it is, not a thing that is likely or normal.

 

[vertices]

You cannot legislate morality. And tbh, it is my right as a individual to hate certain groups and act against them in a legal manner.

define morality.

This is almost surreal what you say. Utopian. The world is built upon competition. From the moment you are born , through school, job interviews, career advancement. There is a lot of "knowing your best interest" involved, a lot of politics, social skills and you must understand and use them all to "advance".

When did I say anything about competition?

The framework I described in my last post simply explains the biological or evolutionary basis for innate altruism: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4766490.stm

 

[vertices]

I get it, you have a dream, but what in human history makes you believe that we're capable, as a society, of achieving the goals you seem to believe are norms?! I don't think it can be argued that your vision isn't a lovely one, I just think it should be presented as the ideal that it is, not a thing that is likely or normal.

I didn't articulate a vision. What I am suggesting is that tackling the causes of crime is a much more effective way of dealing with crime.

 

[DanP]

define morality.
When did I say anything about competition?

The framework I described in my last post simply explains the biological or evolutionary basis for innate altruism: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4766490.stm

Your post is naive. There is nothing but speculation about "altruism" at this point and the evolution. And btw, the vast majority of humans I met in my life where anything but altruistic.

 

[DanP]

I didn't articulate a vision. What I am suggesting is that tackling the causes of crime is a much more effective way of dealing with crime.

Those are 2 vastly different issues.

 

[vertices]

Your post is naive. There is nothing but speculation about "altruism" at this point and the evolution. And btw, the vast majority of humans I met in my life where anything but altruistic.

Well, the concept of reciprocal altruism is accepted by mainstream evolutionary biologists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

And btw, the vast majority of humans I met in my life where anything but altruistic.

I'm sorry to hear that

 

[DanP]

Well, the concept of reciprocal altruism is accepted by mainstream evolutionary biologists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

Sure tit for tat is accepted, because it's much less controversial as altruism. As long as I gain from helping you, there is no problem :P

 

[apeiron]

I get it, you have a dream, but what in human history makes you believe that we're capable, as a society, of achieving the goals you seem to believe are norms?! I don't think it can be argued that your vision isn't a lovely one, I just think it should be presented as the ideal that it is, not a thing that is likely or normal.

No, these things are social choices. Neo-liberalism and the social inequality it must produce are a choice a nation makes.

Some countries have made famously radical changes in choice when it comes to incarceration and punishment...

This is Finland's criminal justice system at work. Here, offenders either serve remarkably short prison sentences or, far more commonly, no prison time at all. Finland's incarceration rate is just 52 per 100,000 people, less than half Canada's rate of 119 per 100,000 people and a tiny fraction of the American rate of 702.

After more than 30 years, the Finnish experiment has produced clear conclusions: High incarceration rates and tough prison conditions do not control crime. They are unnecessary. If a nation wishes, it can send few offenders to prison, and make those prisons humane, without sacrificing the public's safety.

http://www.dangardner.ca/Archmar1802.html

And the connection between neo-liberal regimes and the need to blame individuals for their sins is also well studied...

Under neo-liberalism the welfare state is minimalist and residual, consisting
mainly of means-tested welfare benefits, entitlement to which is often
heavily stigmatized. Consequently the status and economic well-being of
citizens is heavily dependent on how well they can succeed in the (free)
marketplace of the economy.
Although social relationships in neo-liberal societies are formally egalitarian,
this economic system results in extremely marked (and currently still
widening) income differentials. This material inequality, combined with a
lack of social entitlements afforded to individuals as of right, results in the
social exclusion of many who find themselves marginalized by the markets
in which they cannot compete effectively or afford to operate, particularly
the labour and housing markets (Lash and Urry, 1994: 156ff.). The term
‘social exclusion’ is not merely a synonym for poverty, but is used to refer
to the denial of full effective rights of citizenship and participation in civil,
political and social life. In neo-liberal states it is common for whole
communities to experience the effects of social exclusion, one symptom of
which is a withdrawal from their localities of a variety of institutions,
ranging from commodity markets (in the form of neighbourhood shops),
employment markets (in the form of job opportunities), welfare state
institutions and trade unions. Moreover, the most important remaining
traditional institution—the family—may also be severely dislocated as a
result of the economic and social changes brought about by the effects of
unregulated deindustrialization. In the United States, this phenomenon
of social exclusion is often discussed in terms of an ‘underclass’, associated
with local ‘ghettos’ of acute deprivation.

http://www.uk.sagepub.com/cavadino/penal_policy_and_political_economy.pdf

The US did of course make a choice...

...the single most salient trend in the American way
with offenders since the 1970s, which is a spectacular increase in the
harshness of punishment. One manifestation of this has been in the USA’s
use of the death penalty, now on a scale unrivalled by any other developed
capitalist country.4 But equally spectacular has been the quintupling of the
numbers of inmates in US prisons and jails since the mid-1970s to a figure
currently exceeding 2 million, giving the USA by far the highest proportionate
prison population in the world.

http://www.uk.sagepub.com/cavadino/penal_policy_and_political_economy.pdf

@ DanP, the consequences of the selfishness that neo-liberalism promotes are also well documented...

Putnam draws on evidence including nearly 500,000 interviews over the last quarter century to show that we sign fewer petitions, belong to fewer organizations that meet, know our neighbors less, meet with friends less frequently, and even socialize with our families less often. We're even bowling alone

http://bowlingalone.com/

 

[nismaratwork]

No, these things are social choices. Neo-liberalism and the social inequality it must produce are a choice a nation makes.

Some countries have made famously radical changes in choice when it comes to incarceration and punishment...



And the connection between neo-liberal regimes and the need to blame individuals for their sins is also well studied...



The US did of course make a choice...



@ DanP, the consequences of the selfishness that neo-liberalism promotes are also well documented...

I'm not buying this apeiron; Finland is a very homogeneous society where social pressures differ from those of Spain, or the USA, or Russia (examples). Their experiment proves something only in relation to their initial conditions, which differ from others. You picked a country which is generally ranked in the low to mid top-ten places to live, some of which is a matter of their history, neighbours, homogeneity of their population, and more.

Some bare statistics:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fi.html

Now compare 100 years of history between Finland, and the USA, in terms of involvement in wars, changes in immigration and society, and more. The differences are enormous, and the comparison loses meaning. High incarceration rates and tough prison conditions clearly do NOT control crime, as you point out, but the reasons you offer aren't the ones that make for a convincing case.

 

[apeiron]

I'm not buying this apeiron; Finland is a very homogeneous society where social pressures differ from those of Spain, or the USA, or Russia (examples). Their experiment proves something only in relation to their initial conditions, which differ from others. You picked a country which is generally ranked in the low to mid top-ten places to live, some of which is a matter of their history, neighbours, homogeneity of their population, and more.

Some bare statistics:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fi.html

Now compare 100 years of history between Finland, and the USA, in terms of involvement in wars, changes in immigration and society, and more. The differences are enormous, and the comparison loses meaning. High incarceration rates and tough prison conditions clearly do NOT control crime, as you point out, but the reasons you offer aren't the ones that make for a convincing case.

You were describing a different social situation as an idealistic dream, suggesting that you saw the US situation as some kind of norm.

Finland may have reasons why it was easier to become less Russian, more Scandinavian, but why couldn't the US become less, well American, and more Canadian, if that was its choice?

Canada has a reasonable number of the US risk factors - immigrants, inner cities, scale, etc - but makes different crime and punishment choices.

So what is your argument? That the US has no choice but to lock people up at a rate three times any other western nation, and six to 10 times the rate of Scandanavian countries? That it is good and natural that its citizens are so fearful they want to execute people with even less delay?

There are two ways of responding to the world - with emotion or with reason. I know what the literature says is the reasonable view when it comes effective, evidence-based justice, as opposed to redneck populism where single extreme cases are cited to justify an unexamined, socially constructed, worldview.

(And I know that you prefer the path of reason too, of course).

 

[apeiron]

Some bare statistics:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

And I was really confused by your citation. I can't see that it makes your point. Unless your point was that the US has a toxic social system of its own design?

The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their labor unions stronger.
And what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us on statistic after statistic after statistic.

These statistics are shattering to those who believe that greater individualism and less government somehow produce better societies. And they should serve as a wake-up call to every American that this country is headed in the wrong direction.

These statistics evoke two common responses from conservatives and libertarians. The most natural response is to blame them on 40 years of Democratic government. This, however, is a giant non sequitur. The very point of this list is that nations with far more liberal governments than ours have created better societies, even with somewhat less productivity. If liberalism were really harmful to a nation's standard of living, then these nations should be doing worse, not better.

Moreover, as mentioned earlier, America's truly liberal government was replaced in the mid-70s by the corporate special interest system, which introduced a conservative agenda of tax cuts for the rich and massive deregulation of business. Corporate lobbyists, and not the interchangeable "Republicrats," have influenced legislation over the past 20 years.

The second most common response is that minorities drag down America's statistics. Of course, blaming minorities for society's problems is an old game in American politics, but it is especially dismaying in this case because it is not even true.

it is important to realize why minorities are not responsible for America's worse showing. And that is because society's most visible problems do not stem primarily from race; they stem from poverty. The poor, both white and black, share the same approximate rates of crime, welfare, teenage and single parenthood, substance abuse and other social problems. The rich, both white and black, share many of the same admired social qualities in the same general percentages. Race is only important in that discrimination against minorities has relegated a disproportionate number of them to poverty. (More)

Ultimately, the fact that America's white statistics are still worse than Europe's should put the race card forever to rest. White Americans are, after all, transplanted Europeans. If their statistics are worse, then it must be for a social reason. And that reason is obvious: polarized wealth in America has enlarged its poor population, and dragged down its averages despite gains among the rich. Clearly, rising tides do not lift all boats.

 

[nismaratwork]

You were describing a different social situation as an idealistic dream, suggesting that you saw the US situation as some kind of norm.

Finland may have reasons why it was easier to become less Russian, more Scandinavian, but why couldn't the US become less, well American, and more Canadian, if that was its choice?

Canada has a reasonable number of the US risk factors - immigrants, inner cities, scale, etc - but makes different crime and punishment choices.

So what is your argument? That the US has no choice but to lock people up at a rate three times any other western nation, and six to 10 times the rate of Scandanavian countries? That it is good and natural that its citizens are so fearful they want to execute people with even less delay?

There are two ways of responding to the world - with emotion or with reason. I know what the literature says is the reasonable view when it comes effective, evidence-based justice, as opposed to redneck populism where single extreme cases are cited to justify an unexamined, socially constructed, worldview.

(And I know that you prefer the path of reason too, of course).

When did I make the argument for locking people up in the manner that the USA does? You're starting an argument that doesn't exist. My stance on the death penalty was clear, is clear, and applies only to the USA. I don't believe that Finland conforms to Vertices' Utopian dream either, so I'm not sure what point it is that you're trying to make.

If you want to talk about the USA prison system, I'm happy to, but I don't think you'll find that we disagree much. Prison is an industry in the USA, and in large part because of the way the mental health system has been gutted, and the "War on drugs". So... yes, my point is precisely that the USA has a "toxic social system of its own design". This isn't an issue of being liberal however, just blind and stupid, and more concerned with perceived threats being removed from circulation than dealing with root causes.

Tell me how Finland, while lovely, represents the perfect harmony of each person acting altruistically? Just because, by comparison with a truly horrible system, it's pretty nice, doesn't match Vertices' assertions. Do you believe that the route to that kind of social success lies in the simultaneous conversion to altruistic humanism on the individual level that he seems to espouse?

If you want to start a thread about penal systems and their effect on, or reflection of, the state of a state, I'd be happy to join in. As it stands, I think you've misunderstood my position, and used Finland as a stalking horse for a completely different notion of how the world as a whole can operate.

Japan for instance, avoids a great deal of incarceration and crime, but there is a cost. Much of the crime is institutionalized and diverted to outright corruption. In other cases, social norms render what would be a crime in another country (the "water trade" for instance), merely a quiet social reality. There is the fact that a stain such as a criminal history in Japan is also tremendously destructive, even if it's minor and/or juvenile, compared to the USA. Considering that the USA is pretty terrible about rehabilitation and hiring felons, that's saying something. There are many hidden costs built into the societies with seeming harmony that having nothing to do with Utopian altruism or high ideals.

 

[apeiron]

Tell me how Finland, while lovely, represents the perfect harmony of each person acting altruistically?

The only reason for singling out Finland is that it is the literature's standard case. It is a real world experiment that can be examined empirically.

And I do not argue that altruism is everything, only that it is natural and necessary.

To me, it is clear that societies are a balance of the opposing tensions of competition and co-operation. And Finland probably has struck a reasonable balance of those like other Scandinavian countries.

Japan for instance, avoids a great deal of incarceration and crime, but there is a cost. Much of the crime is institutionalized and diverted to outright corruption...There are many hidden costs built into the societies with seeming harmony that having nothing to do with Utopian altruism or high ideals.

Agreed of course. There are dangers of countries being too homogenous.

I could also say - as I happen to be writing about Goldman Sachs this week - the US has an even more costly corporate crime problem.

But the thread has reflected a general belief that a punitive response is also a natural one. I can see now that you were just countering the anti-thesis, that altruism is somehow the "real natural response".

Like me, you probably see it as obvious that a functioning society is a balance of competition and co-operation - between individual and collective responsibility of social problems.

The debate only gets interesting when it is about what that ideal balance actually looks like - at this point in history.

 

[DanP]

And I do not argue that altruism is everything, only that it is natural and necessary.

Paradoxically you can find altruism and cruelty in the same person. And I am not talking about extremes, but average , normal persons.

While I do believe that "reciprocal altruism" in a social animal is indeed natural, so are other tendencies, like tendencies to overpower, control and raise to status. The means to do that are more often than not anything but altruistic. A simple empirical fact which can't be denied is that the history of the humankind is a bloodbath. We kill each other with the same "natural grace" which we use when we cooperate. IMO it is not altruism that is necessary in any form whatsoever for humankind. Tighter and tighter cooperation is.

In a word, I believe that evolutionary "true altruism" (not tit for tat forms) behavior in humans is just a peacock tail. A Zahavian handicap, and thus ultimately just another tool of status.

I am also somehow disturbed by the tendencies of some in the thread (not you apeiron ) to see humans as something special, a moral and enlightened being. You really have to live in a bubble to believe that IMO.

 

[Ken Natton]

Philosophically DanP, there is vey little common ground between you and I. However, I don’t think there is much point in going over much of it, because we are each unlikely to persuade the other and I doubt that it would provide conversation of much value for anyone else to follow. But there is one point that I will pick up on, since it has seen some discussion on this thread, though its connection with the supposed subject of this thread is tenuous to say the least. Somewhere in a previous post you described discussion of altruism in evolutionary terms as speculative. In your last post you sought to further disparage it. On this point, it is clear, you are quite wrong.

Bill Hamilton is a much respected scientist who devoted much of his scientific career to the study of altruism. There is, believe it or not, even a mathematical formula that expresses it. Scientific study of altruism is based on the premise that, for it to be a genetically programmed behaviour, it must have had some selective advantage. For the most part then, its explanation focuses on individuals who are closely related, and thus share a high proportion of genes. But, as the article that vertices linked to in post #219 suggests, altruism as a genetically programmed behaviour is not necessarily proven to exist only among closely related individuals. This invokes concepts like group selection, which remains a deeply controversial idea in evolutionary biology. But the point that I am making is that it is clear, there is a great deal of cold, hard science behind the notion of altruism as a genetically programmed behaviour brought about by the same evolutionary processes as any other common feature among species.

But that doesn’t mean that I agree with those who have asserted that co-operative behaviour is natural to humanity. I don’t necessarily disagree with them, I just suggest that it is a good deal more complicated than that. Unfortunately for me, the texts I would refer to are not scientific ones, they are purely philosophical. The novels ‘Heart of Darkness’ by Joseph Conrad (on which the film ‘Apocalypse Now’ is based) and ‘Lord of the Flies’ by William Golding are both portrayals of the fact that humanity’s natural behaviour is essentially barbaric. Civilised behaviour is something we learn. It is not natural to us, and it is all too easily stripped away. Civilisation, and a system of criminal justice, is based on the belief that humanity has the ability to rise above its genetic programming to recognise a greater common good.

 

[apeiron]

A simple empirical fact which can't be denied is that the history of the humankind is a bloodbath. We kill each other with the same "natural grace" which we use when we cooperate.

But is that a simple fact? The evidence of paleo and cultural anthropology is actually that human societies are suprisingly varied on this score.

For example, there is Catherine Lutz's accounts of the Ifaluk - http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/Society/Ifaluk.html

And Colin Turnbull's even more famous accounts of the Congo pygmies - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbuti

So what we are actually talking about here is a bistability. The ability at both individual and group level to switch rather sharply between competition and co-operation, friendliness and aggression.

When two individuals meet, or two groups meet, there always has to be a choice about which behaviours are expressed. Peaceful people, like the Mbuti and Ifaluk, will be just more that way because they have developed a cultural rather than biological setting. Other cultures will be quicker to flick into combative mode. And it is usually easy to see the reasons why, such as resource scarcity.

Neither the fact that humans can be effective killers, nor effective collaborators, tells us something basic about the nature of humanity. Rather it is the effectiveness with which we can make the proper choice of behaviours that matters.

I suppose this supports the OP. If we what we should value is clear-cut actions, then delaying an execution once the decision has been taken does seem ineffective.

But I would still want to step back and look at the evidence for what actually works when it comes to the primary goal of creating safer communities.

 

[apeiron]

But, as the article that vertices linked to in post #219 suggests, altruism as a genetically programmed behaviour is not necessarily proven to exist only among closely related individuals. This invokes concepts like group selection, which remains a deeply controversial idea in evolutionary biology. But the point that I am making is that it is clear, there is a great deal of cold, hard science behind the notion of altruism as a genetically programmed behaviour brought about by the same evolutionary processes as any other common feature among species.

By contrast, I have always found the arguments for biological altruism very poor.

Altruism means being self-sacrificing (in a Darwinian fitness sense) even when we have the knowledge and power to do otherwise. The biological examples usually cited do not have that element of a knowing choice.

A tendency to be empathetic, co-operative, etc - no problem. We can point to hormone systems (oxytocin) and brain structures (orbitofrontal cortex, mirror neurons) that can underpin these behaviours biologically. But altruism, or knowing sacrifice - much too strong a word for what is observed outside of sociocultural constructs.

The BBC report about altruism in toddlers seems to me more a straightforward example of empathy. The kids would have followed what the experimenter was doing as if they themselves were doing it. Humans (and chimps, and even monkeys) have evolved to follow and mimic the behaviour of adults for good reason. So their minds will leap to the obvious action if they observed the spoon being "lost". It it not altruism, just problem solving. And kids would in fact find it harder to avoid acting on their thoughts.

Altruism has been deployed in biological debate because it would pose the sternest rebuff to Darwinian reductionism - the red in tooth and claw model of evolution which is tired old Victorian nonsense.

But you don't need one extreme to counter another extreme when it is already so clear that Darwinian fitness is inherently already about striking a competion~co-operation balance.

Ken says group selection is still a deeply controversial notion. Like other alleged controversies in evolutionary theory, such as gradual vs punctuated evolution, sometimes it seems people just want to have something to argue about when really the answers are boringly simple.

 

[DanP]

Bill Hamilton is a much respected scientist who devoted much of his scientific career to the study of altruism. There is, believe it or not, even a mathematical formula that expresses it. Scientific study of altruism is based on the premise that, for it to be a genetically programmed behaviour, it must have had some selective advantage. For the most part then, its explanation focuses on individuals who are closely related, and thus share a high proportion of genes. But, as the article that vertices linked to in post #219 suggests, altruism as a genetically programmed behaviour is not necessarily proven to exist only among closely related individuals. This invokes concepts like group selection, which remains a deeply controversial idea in evolutionary biology. But the point that I am making is that it is clear, there is a great deal of cold, hard science behind the notion of altruism as a genetically programmed behaviour brought about by the same evolutionary processes as any other common feature among species.

It's tit for tat. The basis of cooperation. A requirement for a social animal. But it is not altruism. In tit for tat, there is no need at all to exist a closest genetic relationship, nor self-sacrificing.
Youll scratch my back, Ill scratch yours. If you want, it's a business, one designed to make me stronger. Simple survival with no mystique elements in it, no false pretenses of "humanity" meaning something special , no morale, no right or wrong. Those are all social elements. We are extremely complex and evolved animals. That's all there is to humanity, from a evolutionary PoV. A Btw, mathematical model remains only a mathematical model. It proves nothing in itself, you should know that. There are working mathematical models for many theories, including Zahavian handicap.

Anyway, at this time I think you cannot say that "Im clearly wrong" since all there is in evolutionary biology at this time are models and hypotheses. If anything, I believe in the hypothesis of Zahavian handicap for "altrusitic" behaviors which do not fiit the tit for tat model. Altrusim is a peacock tail.

 

[DanP]

But you don't need one extreme to counter another extreme when it is already so clear that Darwinian fitness is inherently already about striking a competion~co-operation balance.

I agree with this point of view.

 

[Ken Natton]

Hmmm. Okay, again, I will not be drawn into a pointless spat. Clearly we hold fundamentally different opinions and, as I said, neither of us is going to persuade the other. About genetically programmed altruism, let me add only this:

I have had previous involvement in discussions about altruism, and it is interesting how it always seems to degenerate into differences of opinion about the definition of altruism. So let me turn it around. There is an entirely dispassionately observable behaviour among hymenoptera that requires scientific explanation in evolutionary terms. Scientists who have attempted to address that have seen fit to give it the name ‘altruism’. Having offered an objective, scientific explanation for it in Darwinian evolutionary terms, the basic idea has been extended and been found to be observable, to greater or lesser degrees, among other species. It is even demonstrably present among human beings. It is, for example, offered as an explanation for why, generally, step-parents have a harder time bonding with their step-children than do natural parents bonding with their biological offspring. A great deal of serious scientific effort has been involved in the development of this understanding and a significant amount of literature exists for those who wish to understand it properly.

 

[DanP]

A great deal of serious scientific effort has been involved in the development of this understanding and a significant amount of literature exists for those who wish to understand it properly.

Like you ? It is not the models, it;s their interpretation. At this moment biologists in evolutionary branch should be well advised to take the QM point of view, "shut up and calculate" :P

 

[Ken Natton]

I assure you DanP, I am as much the layman in Biology as I am in Physics. I have equal amounts of respect for the serious exponents of both disciplines.

 

[apeiron]

There is an entirely dispassionately observable behaviour among hymenoptera that requires scientific explanation in evolutionary terms. Scientists who have attempted to address that have seen fit to give it the name ‘altruism’.

This is indeed mostly just an issue over jargon. The preferred term when I was doing evolution theory was kin selection. And it raised no eyebrows at all.

But also, what was in fact important about Hamilton's paper (http://www.montana.edu/wwwbi/staff/creel/bio405/hamilton%201963.pdf ) was how it shifted the focus from selection based on individuals to the frequencies of genes themselves - Dawkin's whole selfish gene schtick.

So ironically, it was a further reductive step rather than some kind of suggestion that evolution could select at a higher level than the individual (ie: group behaviour).

Hamilton himself said "some kind of altruism" in his paper. So he really meant what looks like altruism, but is really just reductive genetic selfishness. And the controversy, such as it exists, is more to do with those who feel Dawkins is just too reductive and some kind of group level selection can happen. Complex social behaviours might seem to require it.

See for example...
http://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-controversy-of-group-selection-theory/

Or...
http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/01-10-058.pdf

 

[Ken Natton]

My understanding is that, while obviously related, the ideas of evolved altruism and kin selection are not exactly the same thing. Perhaps the former is just a special case of the latter. I accept that there is an obvious link between them both and Dawkins’ idea of the selfish gene. Also, I believe Hamilton’s contribution involved a good deal more than one paper, but constituted, in fact, a substantial body of work. As I said, there is a good deal of literature about this available, but one particular book that I found particularly informative, with my penchant for accounts that place scientific discoveries in their historical perspective, is ‘The Altruism Equation’ by Lee Alan Dugatkin.

Trying to drag this back to relevance to the thread, the original mention of altruism on this thread, it seemed to me, sought to suggest that criminal justice is somehow based on what we should expect of the behaviour of human beings based on their evolved, genetically programmed behaviour. I sought to suggest that criminal justice is based on the belief that human beings have an emergent capability to recognise the harm that they do, and to make choices that are not necessarily based on nothing more than their genetically programmed instincts.

 

[nismaratwork]

The only reason for singling out Finland is that it is the literature's standard case. It is a real world experiment that can be examined empirically.

And I do not argue that altruism is everything, only that it is natural and necessary.

To me, it is clear that societies are a balance of the opposing tensions of competition and co-operation. And Finland probably has struck a reasonable balance of those like other Scandinavian countries.



Agreed of course. There are dangers of countries being too homogenous.

I could also say - as I happen to be writing about Goldman Sachs this week - the US has an even more costly corporate crime problem.

But the thread has reflected a general belief that a punitive response is also a natural one. I can see now that you were just countering the anti-thesis, that altruism is somehow the "real natural response".

Like me, you probably see it as obvious that a functioning society is a balance of competition and co-operation - between individual and collective responsibility of social problems.

The debate only gets interesting when it is about what that ideal balance actually looks like - at this point in history.

You're correct, your view of an ideal society is very much the one I have. I don't believe that altruism is the natural response, but I don't believe that caging a solid percentage of the population is either. We need to identify true threats and sequester them, but there is no need to make that stay in prison a torture either. Rehabilitation is the stated mission, and yet... we seem to always see politicians talk only about retribution. I find it interesting that people seem to prefer a sense of vengeance to a more stable and functional society.

Ken Natton: There remains the issue that if someone is a psychopath, they are not going to be treatable at our current level of technology. We can incarcerate them, or place them in a hospital, but evidence suggests that neither will have a meaningful effect. The problem is that we mix this .5%-1% of the population (male at least) with people who may have committed a crime of desperation, stupidity, or passion. It shouldn't shock anyone that when we throw people into a jungle, they learn jungle-survival, not how to be a productive member of society. Our system is insane, ignoring the matter of genetics and intent, and ignoring higher ideals such as altruism or even vengeance for its own sake.

 

[Ken Natton]

I’m not entirely sure what the point you are making to me is, nismaratwork. But I suppose it does nicely bring us back, not just to the subject of this thread, but to the specific case to which it referred. Believe me, I quite understand the feelings about this case that probably underpinned Evo’s decision to start the thread. To me, the key feature of this case is not so much the certainty of guilt, but that these individuals were so far beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour. I do not really know a great deal about each of the individuals involved but it seems that there were differing levels of involvement in all that occurred. Some of the individuals involved, such as the one identified as the ring leader, were probably already unreformable. Other individuals might have been reformable before these events, but having participated in them, crossed a line from which they cannot be brought back. Either way, I accept that the law abiding majority must be protected from these individuals. I would not want anyone dear to me to be at risk from them any more than anyone else would.

So it is clear that they do have to be removed from ordinary society. There comes then the question of lifelong incarceration or capital punishment. I understand the argument that suggests that the former might actually be crueller than the latter. Can I conceive of a situation where capital punishment could be carried out without detriment to the credibility of the criminal justice system’s claim to dispassion? I’m not sure. I am more strongly sure that the use of capital punishment as expression of broader public opinion in line with the kind of thing expressed on this thread by DanP would be highly unlikely to produce a safer society.

 

[DanP]

I am more strongly sure that the use of capital punishment as expression of broader public opinion in line with the kind of thing expressed on this thread by DanP would be highly unlikely to produce a safer society.

You see, I never claimed that it would produce a safer society. I am honestly not interested in the aspect of producing a safer society here. (I do not believe anyway that more lenience will produce a safer society, but education at all levels ) What I am interested in is cold justice.
Even if letting criminals of the hook whould by produce by magic a safer society, I would not
indulge in it. It would not be fair to the victims. Justice must be served, the ones who committed murder 1st degree and some other criminal acts in aggravated cases should be put to death.

A safer society is a price to high too pay if it means denting the justice.

 

[skeptic2]

You see, I never claimed that it would produce a safer society. I am honestly not interested in the aspect of producing a safer society here. (I do not believe anyway that more lenience will produce a safer society, but education at all levels ) What I am interested in is cold justice.
Even if letting criminals of the hook whould by produce by magic a safer society, I would not
indulge in it. It would not be fair to the victims. Justice must be served, the ones who committed murder 1st degree and some other criminal acts in aggravated cases should be put to death.

A safer society is a price to high too pay if it means denting the justice.

The concept of justice is subjective and largely cultural. One of the reasons we're having this discussion is that we can't agree on what justice is. In many of the worst crimes there simply is no way of balancing the scales. It sounds to me that the desire to punish criminals, though it may serve no purpose, is nothing more than revenge.

 

[DanP]

... though it may serve no purpose, is nothing more than revenge.

Do you propose then to let them free, and offer them as parting gift from the police station a new handgun and a couple of boxes of rounds ? So tomorrow they can kill your mother or your sister ?

 

[skeptic2]

Did I say that? Have I said that in any of my posts? Why is letting them free the only alternative whenever purposeless punishment is questioned?

 

[lisab]

Do you propose then to let them free, and offer them as parting gift from the police station a new handgun and a couple of boxes of rounds ? So tomorrow they can kill your mother or your sister ?

C'mon, Dan, that's a ridiculous strawman.

 

[nismaratwork]

I’m not entirely sure what the point you are making to me is, nismaratwork. But I suppose it does nicely bring us back, not just to the subject of this thread, but to the specific case to which it referred. Believe me, I quite understand the feelings about this case that probably underpinned Evo’s decision to start the thread. To me, the key feature of this case is not so much the certainty of guilt, but that these individuals were so far beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour. I do not really know a great deal about each of the individuals involved but it seems that there were differing levels of involvement in all that occurred. Some of the individuals involved, such as the one identified as the ring leader, were probably already unreformable. Other individuals might have been reformable before these events, but having participated in them, crossed a line from which they cannot be brought back. Either way, I accept that the law abiding majority must be protected from these individuals. I would not want anyone dear to me to be at risk from them any more than anyone else would.

So it is clear that they do have to be removed from ordinary society. There comes then the question of lifelong incarceration or capital punishment. I understand the argument that suggests that the former might actually be crueller than the latter. Can I conceive of a situation where capital punishment could be carried out without detriment to the credibility of the criminal justice system’s claim to dispassion? I’m not sure. I am more strongly sure that the use of capital punishment as expression of broader public opinion in line with the kind of thing expressed on this thread by DanP would be highly unlikely to produce a safer society.

I think DanP represents a broad swath of US view of retribution as an element of incarceration. We've been decades into sherrifs, DA's, and other politicians running a "tough on crime tough on criminals " platform. The notion of rehabilitation has been lost in the static of what is a crime that is NOT the most common: murder.

I understand why DanP feels the way he does, although personally I disagree for practical reasons, in the current state of US justice there ARE people too dangerous to be alive, even in a prison like Pelican Bay. If a gang leader can order deaths from a prison cell, that person needs a new level of incarceration, or needs to be killed. It's true that if the system were reworked from the ground up this would be a rare thing, but the system we have shows no signs of positive change.

As a country, we seem to be hell-bent on conflating the notion of accountability with retributive punishment. The whole point, in my view, of prison is twofold:

First, you curtail the freedoms of the prisoner, which in and of itself is a punishment, and while doing so you rehabilitate them.
Second, in those cases where you have a serial rapist, killer, or other recidivist criminal (where drugs are NOT the root cause), you protect society by sequestering them from the general population.

Now, you just have the "Nancy Grace" view that prison is just a place to throw the "bad seeds" until they magically change of their own accord, or just eat their punishment. What a shock that a small-time thief learns to be tougher when tossed in a cage with killers and armed robbers in the mix...

Here's where apeiron's points are most salient, but in the context of a healthy and functional system of public mental health, and drug treatment. Instead, we've gutted the former and declared war on the latter. You have someone like DanP who isn't a fool, and from what I can see isn't cruel either, but he resents even the clothing we pay for a criminal in a prison. Without a model to show him that this can be something other than a burden, should you or I be surprised when he sticks by his guns? After all, in the current system people are likely to do a lot of what he says they will, and keeping them in prison IS a waste of money in the absence of rehabilitation.

I don't know how we step out of this closed circuit and remove the passion from the discussion...

DanP: If someone commits an armed robbery, and kills someone in the process, they aren't necessarily (or even likely to be) a lost cause. Shouldn't we distinguish between sociopaths, and people who can be treated and rehabilitated? If someone takes a life, is it better to simply take their life, or work to make them someone who will spend the rest of their life trying to pay their debt to society?

 

[DanP]

I think DanP represents a broad swath of US view of retribution as an element of incarceration.

I am not an American, I live in EU where many politicians are too soft, and where they banished the death penalty

DanP: If someone commits an armed robbery, and kills someone in the process, they aren't necessarily (or even likely to be) a lost cause. Shouldn't we distinguish between sociopaths, and people who can be treated and rehabilitated? If someone takes a life, is it better to simply take their life, or work to make them someone who will spend the rest of their life trying to pay their debt to society?

It depends on the circumstances of the murder. If I where a DA I may request a death penalty or not in such a case, but it would really depend on the circumstances of the armed robbery, and whatever or not I have a solid case.

Frankly, my view is that rehabilitation is another waste of tax-payers money. Someone who kills (murder 1 usually ) is accountable for his deed and must be punished. I am more interested in seeing him pay than rehabbing him. This is not an actor who has an occasional DUI and its ordered rehab, it's someone who premeditated took a life.