The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 04-14-2012, 02:35 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 60,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Is it then your opinion that all who kill should be in prison for life?
I don't want to make a blanket rule. But I think that most people who commit murder should be in prison for life.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #152  
Old 04-14-2012, 02:46 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 60,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
With respect, that is a ridiculous argument.People should be released from punishment if they demonstrate that they are fundamentally changed.
Really? What happens if they experience this fundamental change after a week in prison? (Not at all unlikely - hearing that cell door close is probably a big wake-up call for many people.) According to your logic, they should be released.

I'm speculating that you don't actually think that. Your actual position probably has some minimum prison time in it. Something like "fundamental change plus ten years". In order to get out of prison after committing murder, you have to have a fundamental change. But only in your eleventh year or later. A fundamental change that happens in your ninth year is too soon.

This standard seems much more ridiculous than mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
Many crimes have consequenses that last forever. It doesn't mean that someone should be punished forever.

Suppose someone steals and destroys a unique work of art. It can never be replaced. It is gone forever. Should that person remain in prison forever?

"Did the artwork stop being destroyed in 1984? Did it stop being destroyed in 1989? No. It's still destroyed, so the thief should still be in prison"

Makes as much sense as yours.
No, this doesn't follow. The original crime wasn't as great. Destroying a piece of property isn't as big a crime as killing a human being so the magnitude of the punishment should be less.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04-14-2012, 03:51 AM
2sense 2sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I don't see how you're having such a hard time understanding such a simple concept. Manson was convicted of helping to murder several people in 1969. Did those people stop being dead in 1984? Did they stop being dead in 1989? No. They're still dead so Manson should still be in prison.

There's no reason to keep asking me the same question. This is my answer and I'm not going to come up with something different if you ask me a fourth or fifth time.
It doesn't seem to me that I've been asking you the same question. I thought I was exploring the flaws in your reasoning. It may seem cut and dried in your mind but as I've pointed out your position is somewhat arbitrary in that the same exact actions are not visited upon the criminal. And there are problems with your focus on the permanence of the consequences to determine the magnitude of the crime (as Peter Morris adroitly points out). I'm not asking you to change your answer. You are entitled to your opinion. Just as we are entitled to point out why it's not particularly compelling.
-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
What about the safety of others? The fact that allowing Manson to go free would endanger a great many people?
I'm not arguing that Manson should go free. I don't believe he should for that very reason.
__________________
Just my 2sense
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04-14-2012, 04:03 AM
2sense 2sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
No, this doesn't follow. The original crime wasn't as great. Destroying a piece of property isn't as big a crime as killing a human being so the magnitude of the punishment should be less.
Somehow I missed this response before I posted. I'll leave it to Peter Morris to complain about moving the goal posts if he wishes and concentrate on the fact that other variables are involved in determining the magnitude of the crime. Given the arbitrary nature of your theory of punishment then essentially you believe in lifelong punishment for murderers because you feel that is what's appropriate. Again not very convincing. I'm more comfortable relying on tangible considerations (deterrence and community safety) as guidelines.
__________________
Just my 2sense
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 04-14-2012, 04:52 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 60,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sense View Post
It doesn't seem to me that I've been asking you the same question. I thought I was exploring the flaws in your reasoning. It may seem cut and dried in your mind but as I've pointed out your position is somewhat arbitrary in that the same exact actions are not visited upon the criminal. And there are problems with your focus on the permanence of the consequences to determine the magnitude of the crime (as Peter Morris adroitly points out). I'm not asking you to change your answer. You are entitled to your opinion. Just as we are entitled to point out why it's not particularly compelling.
It is arbitrary. I have a standard I feel applies. You have a different arbitrary standard that you feel applies. Neither of us can claim that our standard is based on some objective fact.

I've explained what I've based my standard on and shown that it's reasonably consistent (at least as consistent as any other standard that's been mentioned in this thread). It appears that the flaw that you feel exists is that my reasoning arrives at a different conclusion than yours. So be it.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 04-14-2012, 04:57 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 60,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sense View Post
Somehow I missed this response before I posted. I'll leave it to Peter Morris to complain about moving the goal posts if he wishes and concentrate on the fact that other variables are involved in determining the magnitude of the crime. Given the arbitrary nature of your theory of punishment then essentially you believe in lifelong punishment for murderers because you feel that is what's appropriate. Again not very convincing. I'm more comfortable relying on tangible considerations (deterrence and community safety) as guidelines.
I don't feel I moved any goal posts. I stand by what I said. Peter asked about a different subject so I gave a different answer. But it's the same principle. The magnitude of the punishment should be based on the magnitude of the crime.

Kidnapping a person isn't as great a crime as murdering a person. Stealing a piece of property isn't as great a crime as destroying a piece of property. A crime against property isn't as great a crime as a crime against a person. You weigh these factors when you determine the magnitude of the appropriate punishment.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 04-15-2012, 12:57 AM
2sense 2sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It is arbitrary. I have a standard I feel applies. You have a different arbitrary standard that you feel applies. Neither of us can claim that our standard is based on some objective fact.

I've explained what I've based my standard on and shown that it's reasonably consistent (at least as consistent as any other standard that's been mentioned in this thread). It appears that the flaw that you feel exists is that my reasoning arrives at a different conclusion than yours. So be it.
I seem to be doing a poor job of communicating in this thread. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your reasoning. I understood that we were working from different assumptions and wouldn't necessarily come to a final agreement. I was just examining your standard. Certainly my own standard isn't perfect but it is more consistent. Punishment is for reasonable deterrence and once that has occurred prisoners should be released if it is safe to do so. There can be disagreement over how much deterrence or assurance of public safety is enough but I think those issues make more solid ground for arguments (because they are measurable) than arguing personal opinions about how much punishment is enough.

I hope that was clearer.
__________________
Just my 2sense
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 04-15-2012, 01:52 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 60,012
I'm afraid not. I have a hard time seeing how you feel your standard is more consistent. My standard is pretty consistent - you commit murder you go to prison for the rest of your life. Say what you will, it's a clear objective standard.

Your standard, which is based on reasonable deterrence, seems a lot more variable. It's hard to define how much punishment it would take to cause a person to renounce crime and the amount is going to vary from one individual to another. You're going to be seeing a lot more subjective judgement calls in your system than in mine. And I don't see how you can say these factors are measurable. If release is a result of demonstrating deterrence there's an obvious incentive to fake a sense of deterrence.

There's also a question of effectiveness. Even if we grant that imprisonment has a deterrent effect on criminals, the problem with your system is that it removes people from the prison once the deterrence point is reached. If it was the prison environment that was creating the deterrence, how do we know that deterrence will last once the subject is out of that environment? He was a criminal before, presumably due in part to the environment he was in "on the outside" and now you've placed him back in that environment. Isn't there a likelihood that this environment will cause his sense of deterrence to fade away? If the outside pushes an individual towards crime and prison pushes that same individual away from crime, then isn't prison the best environment for that individual?
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 04-15-2012, 07:15 PM
jimpatro jimpatro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sense View Post
Must the magnitude of the punishment always fit the crime? Must a sicko torturer be slowly disemboweled and allowed to die of starvation and gangrene if he did that to his victim? How far is too far for us to go? Where is our moral superiority over these criminals?
Yes, he must. Well, that's a good start.

And the moral superiority is that we don't go around hurting anyone that doesn't hurt us first. Don't want to be disemboweled? Then don't disembowel.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 04-15-2012, 10:17 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimpatro View Post
And the moral superiority is that we don't go around hurting anyone that doesn't hurt us first.
Unless we're convinced they are about to do it, or convict the wrong guy, or decide they're the person allowed to disembowel someone, and ... well, we hardly ever disembowel someone who hasn't disemboweled someone else, and that's all the moral superiority I need.
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 04-16-2012, 11:47 PM
2sense 2sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I'm afraid not. I have a hard time seeing how you feel your standard is more consistent. My standard is pretty consistent - you commit murder you go to prison for the rest of your life. Say what you will, it's a clear objective standard.
For that one crime, perhaps. But what about all the others? How is the magnitude of the crimes of rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, and the like determined? This is what I said when disagreement would be based on personal opinions. Also there would be disagreement over your standard based on their opinions of the magnitude of the crime of murder. Many people I expect would object to seeing the same sentence handed down to a murderer of innocent children and the father who in a rage kills said murderer.

Quote:
Your standard, which is based on reasonable deterrence, seems a lot more variable. It's hard to define how much punishment it would take to cause a person to renounce crime and the amount is going to vary from one individual to another. You're going to be seeing a lot more subjective judgement calls in your system than in mine. And I don't see how you can say these factors are measurable. If release is a result of demonstrating deterrence there's an obvious incentive to fake a sense of deterrence.
You can study people and determine how much a certain penalty deters them from certain crimes. Not the criminals themselves but a sample of the entire population. In this way metrics can be found from which to base arguments upon about appropriate sentence lengths. Only after such a sentence is served will the convict's mental state become an issue. (In determining if they are safe to be returned to society.)
-

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimpatro View Post
Yes, he must. Well, that's a good start.

And the moral superiority is that we don't go around hurting anyone that doesn't hurt us first. Don't want to be disemboweled? Then don't disembowel.
My point in introducing that scenario was to illustrate that we have scruples about torturing criminals even if they are torturers themselves.

I don't know what to say in response to this.
__________________
Just my 2sense
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 04-17-2012, 07:43 AM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 42,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sense View Post
For that one crime, perhaps. But what about all the others? How is the magnitude of the crimes of rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, and the like determined?
Is that not why we have juries and parole boards?
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 04-17-2012, 11:34 AM
2sense 2sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
No. Sentencing is done by judges according to the guidelines established by law.
__________________
Just my 2sense
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 04-17-2012, 11:44 AM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 42,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sense View Post
No. Sentencing is done by judges according to the guidelines established by law.
Always? I thought there was a sentencing phase when the jury decided upon a sentence.
And surely parole boards decide if a person gets parole rather than a judge.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 04-17-2012, 12:16 PM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: ___\o/___(\___
Posts: 9,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Always? I thought there was a sentencing phase when the jury decided upon a sentence.
I think that only happens in death penalty cases.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 04-17-2012, 04:34 PM
2sense 2sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Always? I thought there was a sentencing phase when the jury decided upon a sentence.
I guess so. But again they are deciding within the range of punishments deemed acceptable by law.

Quote:
And surely parole boards decide if a person gets parole rather than a judge.
Criminals only get to see a parole board if the law permits it. Some here do not believe every criminal deserves a chance at parole.
__________________
Just my 2sense
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 04-17-2012, 04:42 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 42,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sense View Post
Some here do not believe every criminal deserves a chance at parole.
Well, it ain't doing Manson much good.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 04-17-2012, 05:10 PM
Maggie the Ocelot Maggie the Ocelot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Wow. I'm amazed at some of the hysteria y'all are exhibiting.

He's a guy - a mentally ill fellow who many years ago convinced some people to kill some other people. Not a nice person, and as people have stated he doesn't seem to have reformed or shown any remorse (mentally ill, see above) - but jaysus!

He's not the boogyman. He doesn't have supernatural powers. He's not from the Elemental Plane of Evil. His very existence in freedom will not poison the air for 20 miles around him. He won't cause flowers to wilt or mother's milk to curdle in the breast. He won't even sneak into your house and eat all the ice cream.

He's one mentally ill human. No, he probably shouldn't be free, but I agree with the person above who said he should be in a mental asylum rather than a prison.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 04-17-2012, 07:10 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Mentally ill or not, fuck Charlie Manson. Let him rot in a cell until it is time for him to rot in an anonymous grave. I favor burial at sea so that that groupies, weirdoes, crime junkies, etcetera will not be able to make a shrine out of his gravesite.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 04-17-2012, 09:16 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
He knew right from wrong -- he wasn't so far gone that he couldn't control his actions. So fuck no he doesn't belong in a mental institution.

No, I don't believe in torture. But I do believe there are some crimes that are so heinous, you've forfeited the right to live the rest of your life outside of jail. And Charles Manson is in that catagory.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 04-17-2012, 09:55 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 60,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggie the Ocelot View Post
Wow. I'm amazed at some of the hysteria y'all are exhibiting.

He's a guy - a mentally ill fellow who many years ago convinced some people to kill some other people. Not a nice person, and as people have stated he doesn't seem to have reformed or shown any remorse (mentally ill, see above) - but jaysus!

He's not the boogyman. He doesn't have supernatural powers. He's not from the Elemental Plane of Evil. His very existence in freedom will not poison the air for 20 miles around him. He won't cause flowers to wilt or mother's milk to curdle in the breast. He won't even sneak into your house and eat all the ice cream.

He's one mentally ill human. No, he probably shouldn't be free, but I agree with the person above who said he should be in a mental asylum rather than a prison.
A lot of people in prison are mentally ill. Usually the worst people. It's kind of a prerequisite for being a mass murderer after all.

Manson is not some supernatural being. And I don't think anyone other than you has suggested this. He's just a really bad person. Nothing hysterical about thinking that.

But Manson is responsible for his actions. He understood what he was doing at the time he planned and committed his crimes and afterwards. He also understood that what he was doing was illegal and he made efforts to conceal his involvement.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 04-17-2012, 10:10 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 42,346
Sociopaths are considered insane, are they not?

Lock him up somewhere secure for all time.
I am certain he committed those crimes, but every jury that voted guilty was also sure, and I cannot condone the death penalty under any circumstances.

A jury convicted Leo Frank.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 04-18-2012, 02:56 AM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Sociopaths are considered insane, are they not?

Lock him up somewhere secure for all time.
I am certain he committed those crimes, but every jury that voted guilty was also sure, and I cannot condone the death penalty under any circumstances.

A jury convicted Leo Frank.

How is there any similiarity to Manson and Frank? What are you trying to imply -- that Manson MIGHT have been wrongfully convicted? There is no doubt he did it -- in fact, I believe he's admitted he did it, and doesn't give a shit who knows it now.


Let him rot in jail.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 04-18-2012, 07:39 AM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 42,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
How is there any similiarity to Manson and Frank? What are you trying to imply -- that Manson MIGHT have been wrongfully convicted?
No, that that jurors who make mistakes are just as sure as Manson's were. If you had the death penalty for "just really bad guys" you still might convict an innocent person.
Rotting in jail is fine for him.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 04-18-2012, 08:38 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Sociopaths are considered insane, are they not?

Lock him up somewhere secure for all time.
"Secure" for who?

Not fellow inmates, security or prison hospital personnel, assuming one gives a rap about those people.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 04-18-2012, 08:52 AM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 42,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
"Secure" for who?
We have wardens and folks who can figure that out.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 04-20-2012, 03:32 PM
Jake Jake is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 3,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If they'd carried out the sentence he deserved, his health would have declined a hell of a lot faster a good while ago. And we could have saved ourselves a good deal of trouble.

Regards,
Shodan
Well said!
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 04-20-2012, 05:29 PM
Lust4Life Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Haven't actually read the posts, but no, the evil little piece of filth should have been executed, and I would gladly do it unpaid tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 04-20-2012, 07:16 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 42,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life View Post
Haven't actually read the posts, but no, the evil little piece of filth should have been executed, and I would gladly do it unpaid tomorrow.
Hell, there are people who would pay to do it.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.