On it tomorrow - sounds like good food for prison reform!!!! On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > CB, if you get time, check out this link found on Naturalism.org. > > "Punishment: Since the retributive justification for punishment is > based largely on the notion that behavior is originated by a causally > autonomous self, the motive to impose such punishment may diminish > once it is seen that such a self does not exist. In particular, > support may drop for punitive measures such as the death penalty or > prison sentences without rehabilitative amenities. More attention > will be paid to the conditions which create crime, and to approaches > that redeem offenders instead of further brutalizing them. See the > Criminal Justice page." > > > www.naturalism.org/conseque.htm > > Taylor said >>> Agreed. But I do think there are a number of reasons > for punishment: > > > 1) Train the person not to behave that way (spanking, prison) > 2) *Prevent* the person from behaving that way (prison, amputation, > death) > 3) Make society feel better (retribution) > 4) Make the victim feel better (retribution) > 5) God says so. (morality, guilt, sin, evil) > > > I'm ok with 1 and 2, but I don't feel good about 3, 4 and 5. > Naturalism is compatible with 1-4, but not 5. <<< > > Great. Understanding. :-) > > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 3:23 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <<We instinctively kill those like Charlie and Bobby>> > > > > I smell some truth and evolutionary probability here...though it's not > > pretty. > > > > [?] > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:18 PM, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > No, murder is NOT most often a crime of passion. Such is called > > > manslaughter. There are cold blooded murderers who need to be put > > > down, not as punishment... but because those who are a certain way are > > > far more dangerous than a rabid animal. I have known such individuals. > > > I knew Bobby B. and Squeaky. Lived across the street from them. > > > Squeaky needed therapy. Lots of it. Endless therapy. Bobby B. and > > > Charles Manson just needed to be put down. Charlie couldn't help being > > > the way he is. Neither could Bobby. Still they needed to be put down, > > > not as punishment, but because it is the most humane thing to do for > > > them and their potential victims. These people don't just kill. They > > > kill slow and enjoy every minute of it. They poison all of society > > > within their proximity whether you know they are their or not. When > > > they lived on Alamo Square, it was called the Little Alamo or Murder > > > Square. Without them being responsible directly for any of them there > > > was more than a murder a week in that one block park. We instinctively > > > kill those like Charlie and Bobby. In their particular cases they > > > still live but are dead to society. > > > > >http://niggerwise.com > > > > > On Nov 5, 3:00 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <<is it saying that punishment for some behaviors should be > > > > considered relative to the environment that affected the criminal > when > > > > we > > > > consider punishment like the death penalty? That we can't help > > > > ourselves in > > > > some situations? >> > > > > > > Possibly. One of the arguments against the death penalty for, say, > > > > murder, is that murder is usually a crime of passion. In other > words, > > > > they don't think. Historically, the data did not support the idea > > > > that the death penalty reduced the amount of murder. > > > > > > If that's true, why execute a criminal? > > > > > > But I think the question is more relevant to accidental crimes. If I > > > > get drunk and run over a 10-year-old, why is my penalty so much > > > > harsher than if I was merely weaving down the road and got pulled > over > > > > by a cop? In both cases, the crime is the same, driving under the > > > > influence. > > > > > > I would argue that the penalty needs to be whatever is required to > > > > stop the behavior and no more. The penalty attached to unintended > > > > consequences is unlikely to be a deterrent because the unintended > > > > consequences are...unintended. I don't intend to run over anyone, so > > > > why should I be concerned about the penalty associated with that > > > > behavior? > > > > > > Probably the underlying reason is that we feel that the perpetrator > > > > "deserves" a harsher sentence. > > > > > > > > B60.gif > > < 1KViewDownload- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
