[QUOTE=GenPol;36368472]Yeah, except we're talking about the people who murdered after being rehabilitated. One can simply avoid this fate by not murdering people. Your posts are filled with emotional fallacies, and represent no argumentative value.[/QUOTE]
you do know what causes people to murder eachother, right? mental instability. if your doctors fail to rehabilitate, that's on them. it's like getting mad at someone for coughing after you hire a doctor to cure their cold.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36368944]The system is bloated so it requires much more time for legal workers to completely carry out a case.
In the case of due process it can be very expensive and time consuming for it to be carried out.[/QUOTE]
"The system is bloated so it requires much more time for legal workers to completely carry out a case." - I doubt the legal worker population per prison population of the US is very different from that of Japan. The number of legal workers is usually proportional to the volume of work required. And besides, why are we talking about the US?
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368882]"would you kill 100 people for a great economic benefit, or kill 1 person for no economic benefit? it seems awfully similar to what you're saying here. "
1 [b]The benefit in question isn't economic, but accounted only in terms of lives saved. It's OK to kill 10 people if it saves 1000.[/b]
"at the end of the day, i care about everybody's happiness. there's no such thing as someone that 'can't be rehabilitated', if that's the case then try harder."
2 [b]All rehabilitation should stop after a repeated murder. After that, the person in question should work in labor camps.[/b]
"criminals tend to be the victims of their own crime, nobody specifically wants to be a repeat murderer,"
3 [b]Regardless whether they are or not, they would still pay back the costs they have inflicted on the society by repeatedly murdering people.[/b]
"it's not as if countries in the world need more economic output anyway"
4. [b]Yeah, don't mind the 3rd world, don't mind the absence of adequate free health care in the vast majority of the world's countries, including the developed ones.[/b]
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
"I am telling you that the amount of money it costs to pay a number of legal workers to maintain due process in America will vastly outweigh any profit someone can achieve with manual labor."
Not the case in Japan. Don't see why it wouldn't be the case in the US.[/QUOTE]
well it's nice of you to dodge my other points, but i'll comment on the ones you decided to argue against.
1. you're not saving anybody by having someone do manual labour for the rest of their life. whether they're executed, in a cell for 100 years or performing in mines, nobody is saved. the only person you're saving by rehabilitating is them; the only benefit of manual labour is economic. nobody sits at home and says to themselves, "i'm glad prisoners are performing manual labour! this makes me happy, i'll provide a positive benefit to society now!". it takes alot more than that to improve society.
2. i don't understand this. if somebody is a repeat offender after being rehabilitated, they weren't rehabilitated. i dislike arguing semantics as it draws away from the main point of debate, but if someone is claimed to be rehabilitated then kills again they were either: not rehabilitated, or have a mental condition as mentioned, and should be treated as such. would you throw all schizophrenics into labour camps simply because they cannot be coaxed out of their condition?
3. this is another point i dont understand. the costs on society? you don't seem to understand my point on conditioning very well, you must've been born into a very comfortable environment to not understand this concept. nobody is born a murderer (as mentioned in my first post), you must experience abnormal conditions to become a murderer or think it is ok; if you are deemed 'sane' by psychologists, then it is possible to condition someone out of this method of thinking. understand? because of this, the costs of society aren't 'inflicted' by the murderer, they're inflicted by the environment. you do not solve car crashes by applying a speed limit, you solve car crashes by going to the root of the problem and finding a method in which cars cannot crash.
4. i wouldn't trust third world countries with the resources to carry out labour camps. i would imagine they would soon look like death camps; the only countries that can afford to carry out this kind of procedure are the ones that simply do not require the minute benefits they would bring.
[QUOTE=Cone;36368950]you do know what causes people to murder eachother, right? mental instability. if your doctors fail to rehabilitate, that's on them. it's like getting mad at someone for coughing after you hire a doctor to cure their cold.[/QUOTE]
Lol. Are you even serious? It's the person who performed the action who inflicted the damage to the society, not the one who tried to prevent the murder from happening.
If someone comes to your house with an AK47 and murders your family, tries to get rehabilitated, and then comes and murders another family, it's that person that should be isolated to prevent further deaths, not the doctor.
Justice is pointless. It's attaining maximal benefit for the society that counts.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bobie;36368982]well it's nice of you to dodge my other points, but i'll comment on the ones you decided to argue against.
1. you're not saving anybody by having someone do manual labour for the rest of their life. whether they're executed, in a cell for 100 years or performing in mines, nobody is saved. the only person you're saving by rehabilitating is them; the only benefit of manual labour is economic. nobody sits at home and says to themselves, "i'm glad prisoners are performing manual labour! this makes me happy, i'll provide a positive benefit to society now!". it takes alot more than that to improve society.
2. i don't understand this. if somebody is a repeat offender after being rehabilitated, they weren't rehabilitated. i dislike arguing semantics as it draws away from the main point of debate, but if someone is claimed to be rehabilitated then kills again they were either: not rehabilitated, or have a mental condition as mentioned, and should be treated as such. would you throw all schizophrenics into labour camps simply because they cannot be coaxed out of their condition?
3. this is another point i dont understand. the costs on society? you don't seem to understand my point on conditioning very well, you must've been born into a very comfortable environment to not understand this concept. nobody is born a murderer (as mentioned in my first post), you must experience abnormal conditions to become a murderer or think it is ok; if you are deemed 'sane' by psychologists, then it is possible to condition someone out of this method of thinking. understand? because of this, the costs of society aren't 'inflicted' by the murderer, they're inflicted by the environment. you do not solve car crashes by applying a speed limit, you solve car crashes by going to the root of the problem and finding a method in which cars cannot crash.
4. i wouldn't trust third world countries with the resources to carry out labour camps. i would imagine they would soon look like death camps; the only countries that can afford to carry out this kind of procedure are the ones that simply do not require the minute benefits they would bring.[/QUOTE]
"well it's nice of you to dodge my other points, but i'll comment on the ones you decided to argue against."
It's very hard to understand what you're saying. I picked what I understood.
1. you're not saving anybody by having someone do manual labour for the rest of their life. whether they're executed, in a cell for 100 years or performing in mines, nobody is saved. the only person you're saving by rehabilitating is them; the only benefit of manual labour is economic. nobody sits at home and says to themselves, "i'm glad prisoners are performing manual labour! this makes me happy, i'll provide a positive benefit to society now!". it takes alot more than that to improve society.
Wrong. The profits off their work will be reinvested in health care, which would save thousands of lives.
2. i don't understand this. if somebody is a repeat offender after being rehabilitated, they weren't rehabilitated. i dislike arguing semantics as it draws away from the main point of debate, but if someone is claimed to be rehabilitated then kills again they were either: not rehabilitated, or have a mental condition as mentioned, and should be treated as such. would you throw all schizophrenics into labour camps simply because they cannot be coaxed out of their condition?
If that person can't be rehabilitated using the normal methods, they're far too dangerous to participate in the society.
3. this is another point i dont understand. the costs on society? you don't seem to understand my point on conditioning very well, you must've been born into a very comfortable environment to not understand this concept. nobody is born a murderer (as mentioned in my first post), you must experience abnormal conditions to become a murderer or think it is ok; if you are deemed 'sane' by psychologists, then it is possible to condition someone out of this method of thinking. understand? because of this, the costs of society aren't 'inflicted' by the murderer, they're inflicted by the environment. you do not solve car crashes by applying a speed limit, you solve car crashes by going to the root of the problem and finding a method in which cars cannot crash.
Never argued against that. Some people might grow up in a violet or gang environment. If they put too much of a burden on the society by killing people, they should simply be forced to pay the damages back with additional profit which would be reinvested in health care and save thousands of lives.
4. i wouldn't trust third world countries with the resources to carry out labour camps. i would imagine they would soon look like death camps; the only countries that can afford to carry out this kind of procedure are the ones that simply do not require the minute benefits they would bring.
Investing the profits in health care is a huge benefit which has a potential of saving thousands of lives. Sadly, most 1st world countries have inadequate health care. Free health care should be a right for the normal citizens.
GenPol stop citing Japan as a reason why your disgusting system would work.
Japan uses an incentive system for their labor and they don't force their prisoners to work. Your system involves killing anyone who refuses.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368985]Lol. Are you even serious? It's the person who performed the action who inflicted the damage to the society, not the one who tried to prevent the murder from happening.
If someone comes to your house with an AK47 and murders your family, tries to get rehabilitated, and then comes and murders another family, it's that person that should be isolated to prevent further deaths, not the doctor.
Justice is pointless. It's attaining maximal benefit for the society that counts.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying isolate them, I'm saying that when you sent out doctors to do a job and they fail, it's their fault. I'm not saying that it's not the killer's fault for a murder, but that it's your job to turn crazy unstable people into regular ones.
you say you want to attain maximal benefit for society? locking people in death-camps is not the way to do it. all that'll do is desensitize your people to the concept of economic stability > death and slavery.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36369065]GenPol stop citing Japan as a reason why your disgusting system would work.
Japan uses an incentive system for their labor and they don't force their prisoners to work. Your system involves killing anyone who refuses.[/QUOTE]
Most Japanese prisoners are [b]required[/b] to engage in prison labour. And there's nothing wrong with proposing euthanasia to anyone who refuses, when it comes to those who can't be rehabilitated.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cone;36369077]I'm not saying isolate them, I'm saying that when you sent out doctors to do a job and they fail, it's their fault. I'm not saying that it's not the killer's fault for a murder, but that it's your job to turn crazy unstable people into regular ones.
you say you want to attain maximal benefit for society? locking people in death-camps is not the way to do it. all that'll do is desensitize your people to the concept of economic stability > death and slavery.[/QUOTE]
"you say you want to attain maximal benefit for society? locking people in death-camps is not the way to do it. all that'll do is desensitize your people to the concept of economic stability > death and slavery."
Wrong. Learn to read please, don't reply without any reading. I said that the profits should be reinvested in health care which would save thousands of lives. This isn't 'economic stability', it's saving lives. I'm OK with sending repetitive murderers to labor camps to save thousands of lives.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369094]Most Japanese prisoners are [b]required[/b] to engage in prison labour. And there's nothing wrong with proposing euthanasia to anyone who refuses, when it comes to those who can't be rehabilitated.[/QUOTE]
They are required to work to gain privileges such as access to better cells and generally an earlier release.
They don't hold a figurative gun to a prisoner's head and force them to work or die.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368985]Lol. Are you even serious? It's the person who performed the action who inflicted the damage to the society, not the one who tried to prevent the murder from happening.
If someone comes to your house with an AK47 and murders your family, tries to get rehabilitated, and then comes and murders another family, it's that person that should be isolated to prevent further deaths, not the doctor.
Justice is pointless. It's attaining maximal benefit for the society that counts.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
"well it's nice of you to dodge my other points, but i'll comment on the ones you decided to argue against."
It's very hard to understand what you're saying. I picked what I understood.
1. you're not saving anybody by having someone do manual labour for the rest of their life. whether they're executed, in a cell for 100 years or performing in mines, nobody is saved. the only person you're saving by rehabilitating is them; the only benefit of manual labour is economic. nobody sits at home and says to themselves, "i'm glad prisoners are performing manual labour! this makes me happy, i'll provide a positive benefit to society now!". it takes alot more than that to improve society.
[b]Wrong. The profits off their work will be reinvested in health care, which would save thousands of lives.[/b]
2. i don't understand this. if somebody is a repeat offender after being rehabilitated, they weren't rehabilitated. i dislike arguing semantics as it draws away from the main point of debate, but if someone is claimed to be rehabilitated then kills again they were either: not rehabilitated, or have a mental condition as mentioned, and should be treated as such. would you throw all schizophrenics into labour camps simply because they cannot be coaxed out of their condition?
[b]If that person can't be rehabilitated using the normal methods, they're far too dangerous to participate in the society.[/b]
3. this is another point i dont understand. the costs on society? you don't seem to understand my point on conditioning very well, you must've been born into a very comfortable environment to not understand this concept. nobody is born a murderer (as mentioned in my first post), you must experience abnormal conditions to become a murderer or think it is ok; if you are deemed 'sane' by psychologists, then it is possible to condition someone out of this method of thinking. understand? because of this, the costs of society aren't 'inflicted' by the murderer, they're inflicted by the environment. you do not solve car crashes by applying a speed limit, you solve car crashes by going to the root of the problem and finding a method in which cars cannot crash.
Never argued against that. Some people might grow up in a violet or gang environment. If they put too much of a burden on the society by killing people, they should simply be forced to pay the damages back with additional profit which would be reinvested in health care and save thousands of lives.
4. i wouldn't trust third world countries with the resources to carry out labour camps. i would imagine they would soon look like death camps; the only countries that can afford to carry out this kind of procedure are the ones that simply do not require the minute benefits they would bring.
Investing the profits in health care is a huge benefit which has a potential of saving thousands of lives. Sadly, most 1st world countries have inadequate health care. Free health care should be a right for the normal citizens.[/QUOTE]
1. how can you guarantee this? you're not the government, you cannot divert funds into healthcare. not to mention how much healthcare costs (in the UK it's the biggest employer in the world, which costs hundreds of billions out of taxpayer money) - you couldn't take all the repeat murderers in the world and fund this. it would be alot easier diverting funds from other places such as the military to do so.
2. if they cannot be rehabilitated then their brain does not function normally. if you are mentally incapable of being rehabilitated then you are not fit for labour.
3. they can pay back their 'damages' through rehabilitation, then going onto skilled labour (which gains alot more capital for the government) after the rehabilitation process.
4. i agree health care is a universal right, but penal labour is just not the way to acquire it.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369094]Wrong. Learn to read please, don't reply without any reading. I said that the profits should be reinvested in health care which would save thousands of lives. This isn't 'economic stability', it's saving lives. I'm OK with sending repetitive murderers to labor camps to save thousands of lives.[/QUOTE]
I think you overestimate how many lives would be saved with enhanced healthcare. and, for that matter, what country really needs that much money going towards healthcare? which country do you want to apply this system to?
if the country has a medium-sized population, say, Canada, labor camps are not in any way necessary for enhanced healthcare. just hire a goddamn team of economists and follow their advice, you don't need camps and forced labor for this.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36369132]They are required to work to gain privileges such as access to better cells and generally an earlier release.
They don't hold a figurative gun to a prisoner's head and force them to work or die.[/QUOTE]
Why not to use the Japanese system with some modification to attain higher labor turnouts? There could be many different 'benefits' created for working - ex: the ability to hire prostitutes, the ability to buy commodities, and so on. Just have very low wages, about 1/2 to 1/4 of the normal ones.
and as Bobie said, you won't even get a lot of money unless you've just got everyone in the country doing repeat murders around the clock.
[editline]17th June[/editline]
automerge
[QUOTE=Cone;36369164]and as Bobie said, you won't even get a lot of money unless you've just got everyone in the country doing repeat murders around the clock.[/QUOTE]
There would still be some money, and that would be enough to invest in health care to save lives.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369162]Why not to use the Japanese system with some modification to attain higher labor turnouts? There could be many different 'benefits' created for working - ex: the ability to hire prostitutes, the ability to buy commodities, and so on. Just have very low wages, about 1/2 of the normal ones.[/QUOTE]
I want to know why a system involving punishment with death for refusal to work was the first thing you thought of for a penal labor system.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36369187]I want to know why a system involving punishment with death for refusal to work was the first thing you thought of for a penal labor system.[/QUOTE]
Because the repetitive crime prisoners put too much of a burden on the society. These millions, if not billions of dollars could be better invested in health care to save thousands of lives. I'm OK with 10 repetitive murderers executed to save 1000 lives by using this budget on health care.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369172]There would still be some money, and that would be enough to invest in health care to save lives.[/QUOTE]
how many lives, and how much money?
I'm willing to bet it won't be anywhere near enough to justify this.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369207]Because the repetitive crime prisoners put too much of a burden on the society.[/QUOTE]
no, they don't. lock 'em in a room if you're so adamant that they can't be fixed, see them try to get out.
see, how many people does the average repeat murderer actually kill when he snaps again? one? two? that's not anywhere near enough to convince me they can't be helped.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369207]Because the repetitive crime prisoners put too much of a burden on the society. These millions, if not billions of dollars could be better invested in health care to save thousands of lives. I'm OK with 10 repetitive murderers executed to save 1000 lives by using this budget on health care.[/QUOTE]
And what if under such a system due process had failed an innocent, and that innocent decided he didn't want to be a slave anymore.
Would his death simply be a necessarily sacrifice in a system that would barely, if at all, profit?
[QUOTE=Cone;36369220]how many lives, and how much money?
I'm willing to bet it won't be anywhere near enough to justify this.[/QUOTE]
If it would justify it, I would support it. If it wouldn't, I would support a Japan-like system, but with prostitutes etc. to reduce the prison rape.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36369249]And what if under such a system due process had failed an innocent, and that innocent decided he didn't want to be a slave anymore.
Would his death simply be a necessarily sacrifice in a system that would barely, if at all, profit?[/QUOTE]
What if an innocent gets killed in prison because he gets rectal perforation from being raped?
There's always opportunity cost in terms of probabilities. If it's a very low one, I'm not against it.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369252]with prostitutes etc. to reduce the prison rape.[/QUOTE]
are you serious? putting scantily-clad women in a fenced-off area filled with people who have grown to hate literally everything in the world sounds like a good idea to you?
at best, you'll have a lot of murders, at worst you'll be sending in women to be raped and killed.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369207]Because the repetitive crime prisoners put too much of a burden on the society. These millions, if not billions of dollars could be better invested in health care to save thousands of lives. I'm OK with 10 repetitive murderers executed to save 1000 lives by using this budget on health care.[/QUOTE]
i'd like to see some statistics on how much money manual labour done by prison reoffenders would bring. find statistics per person how much money they bring for the country on average, then i'd like to see the numbers of repeat serious offenders.
if the number reaches into the billions, your argument stands. if it doesn't however, i'm afraid your statements until now have been entirely baseless.
and you haven't even figured out if it would justify it. that's a pretty freaking big part of making a functioning system.
"well I'll enslave these people for life and put them in horrid conditions and make them work for me and maybe I might turn a profit possibly"
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369252]What if an innocent gets killed in prison because he gets rectal perforation from being raped?
There's always opportunity cost in terms of probabilities. If it's a very low one, I'm not against it.[/QUOTE]Oh wow. What a completely broken argument. First of all prison guards should be actively preventing rape from occurring, and if they aren't then the system needs to be improved. Second of all there is a massive difference between being killing a prison by another inmate and being killed by the government in a process of sanctioned murder.
Third of all, someone could use this kind of an argument to fully legalize vigilantism. Why bother making it illegal for people to kill supposed criminals when something else could kill them.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368675]"You cannot run a purely utilitarian society. It's bad for the soul." - There's no soul. The old morals, norms and traditions can be replaced with the utilitarian ones over the course of social development.
Also:
1st case:
I calculate the most likely number of deaths in the scenario, and choose the one which minimizes them.
2nd case:
To begin with, I would have to be living in an utilitarian society with no static laws, but only the ones based on the cost-benefit analysis.
"If you kill the receptionist, only one person will die instead of five? What do you do?"
If the assumptions I've provided are true, I perform the first action.
[/QUOTE]
You'd kill an innocent woman for her organs? I don't want to live in any society you're dreaming up.
Utilitarianism doesn't work on so many levels. What about tyranny of the majority?
Also I know full well there's no soul, it's a figure of speech. Why anyone would agree to live under a system of brainwashing to adjust to your "new morals" is beyond me.
[QUOTE=Cone;36369285]are you serious? putting scantily-clad women in a fenced-off area filled with people who have grown to hate literally everything in the world sounds like a good idea to you?
at best, you'll have a lot of murders, at worst you'll be sending in women to be raped and killed.[/QUOTE]
They wouldn't be sent off, they would have a choice to do it or not. They would get paid a wage for doing it.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36369320]Oh wow. What a completely broken argument. First of all prison guards should be actively preventing rape from occurring, and if they aren't then the system needs to be improved. Second of all there is a massive difference between being killing a prison by another inmate and being killed by the government in a process of sanctioned murder.
Third of all, someone could use this kind of an argument to fully legalize vigilantism. Why bother making it illegal for people to kill supposed criminals when something else could kill them.[/QUOTE]
That's not my point at all. There are always risks associated with everything, one can't eliminate them. There's a risk of going to work. There's a risk of going to school. A risk of using a car, or an airplane. One can only analyze the costs and benefits, and decide which action to take based on the risks and benefits.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369348]They wouldn't be sent off, they would have a choice to do it or not. They would get paid a wage for doing it.[/QUOTE]
so, out of the vast myriads of problems I have with women being raped and horribly murdered, you choose to try and soothe these issues by telling me "they're getting paid".
nice, real goddamn nice.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
and if you don't put up with that INCREDIBLY HUGE risk, you've got prisoners raping eachother and getting progressively more violent. your system is forcing you to do bad things, therefor it is flawed.
[QUOTE=Splurgy_A;36369335]You'd kill an innocent woman for her organs? I don't want to live in any society you're dreaming up.
Utilitarianism doesn't work on so many levels. What about tyranny of the majority?
Also I know full well there's no soul, it's a figure of speech. Why anyone would agree to live under a system of brainwashing to adjust to your "new morals" is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
"You'd kill an innocent woman for her organs?" Strawmanning. This is not what the original argument was. The argument was killing someone if it saves more people.
"What about tyranny of the majority?" - Depends on the case.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369348]That's not my point at all. There are always risks associated with everything, one can't eliminate them. There's a risk of going to work. There's a risk of going to school. A risk of using a car, or an airplane. One can only analyze the costs and benefits, and decide which action to take based on the risks and benefits.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean you can't eliminate the risk?
Let's say we decided to abolish the death penalty. Risk of an innocent being killed by the death penalty eliminated.
It doesn't mean that an innocent can't be killed in the prison system but that is one less significant way it can happen.
Your idea is that because there is always a small risk for death we should just keep adding to that risk.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36369437]What do you mean you can't eliminate the risk?
Let's say we decided to abolish the death penalty. Risk of an innocent being killed by the death penalty eliminated.
It doesn't mean that an innocent can't be killed in the prison system but that is one less significant way it can happen.
Your idea is that because there is always a small risk for death we should just keep adding to that risk.[/QUOTE]
'Let's say we decided to abolish the death penalty. Risk of an innocent being killed by the death penalty eliminated.'
There's a still a risk of getting killed in the prison system, and a rather big one. An innocent can get killed for this reason.
A very low risk of innocents getting killed (1 in thousands) still justifies saving thousands of people by investing more money in health care.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369491]'Let's say we decided to abolish the death penalty. Risk of an innocent being killed by the death penalty eliminated.'
There's a still a risk of getting killed in the prison system, and a rather big one. An innocent can get killed for this reason.
A very low risk of innocents getting killed (1 in thousands) still justifies saving thousands of people by investing more money in health care.[/QUOTE]
could you reply to my points please? they contradict these points and i feel it would be unfair to people like boxbot if you simply ignored them.
[QUOTE=Bobie;36369519]could you reply to my points please? they contradict these points and i feel it would be unfair to people like boxbot if you simply ignored them.[/QUOTE]
Which points? I addressed all of the points I recognized. Make a proper list.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.