Serious Moral Dilemma

[Annika L]

Ok, this question came up privately with another poster (and separately with my partner): what do Americans really want out of their criminal justice system? Safety? Or revenge? Curious to hear what people have to say.

[elian]

Personally? I want rehabilitation. Real rehabilitation - teach people life skills, put them in halfway house, whatever. People make mistakes, at least for non-violent offenders they should have an opportunity to learn from their mistake and get a second chance.

The current system seems to have a focus way too much on revenue, political gain and pure punishment.

Sad story, some friends of mine live North of here in a small town where a local furniture factory employed most people. They made really good furniture and people had something to feel proud about. The entire factory closed down and moved to China. Now there is no work. Most people in town are on public assistance, they work FOR the local prison or they are incarcerated IN the local prison.

It's very sad, I wish the factory would come back but everyone wants everything made as inexpensively as possible nowadays. From the rumors I've heard outsourcing the factory to China didn't turn out to be the panacea that management thought it would be either.

I saw a pie chart of the local budget on the back of the township newsletter and it showed that nearly 75% of the taxes I pay to local government seem to be going to fund the prison just up the hill.

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/02/20/cost-of-prison

I think it's pretty sad that we don't invest in the individual welfare and worth of our society up front but we'll spend all sorts of money to use prisons as a catch-all after the fact.

I had an interesting dream once, taking a walk with a friend in a very unique place. It looked like nature, but if you looked again very closely you could see all sorts of nano technology doing things like powering lights, cleaning the floor, etc. Technology was everywhere, but it was in the background - almost unnoticeable. Where ever that was, in that place you could sense that what mattered first was the people, the community, society. The technology was just there, ubiquitous, very unobtrusive and the society revolved around the people it served.

Here in this world, in the US especially it is the exact opposite. The technology is the center of things, people have to BUY everything. Some of them have it and some don't and what they DO have they flaunt like a fancy hood ornament. They use it for stupid means and very superficial ends. Compared to that other place the technology we have here seems very fisher price - very big and clunky and not very well integrated into anything at all.

It is a symptom of the way we think - we don't THINK like each person has compassion, value and self-worth so it's no wonder many of the physical constructs we have always seem broken. It's no wonder our heroes eventually measure up to a fairy tale , it's no wonder that everything seems like it crumbles sooner or later. They are so used to abuse that some people just are not happy unless they are being abused.

I'm not saying it was perfect but the difference was that people cared about each other more than they cared for things. People also care about each other here, but they seem so overwhelmed with all of the stress of daily life.

[Annika L]

Well dammit. I was going to post a poll with this thread to *really* put things in perspective and get some interesting information. But when I got to the poll page, I found the question was limited in length, so I couldn't do what I'd intended. So I backed out of the poll page, and decided to think about it a bit until I decided on a good way to post the poll. But apparently (unbeknownst to me), the *thread* posted...just without the &@!!#& poll.

If I had the power to delete a thread...and if Elain hadn't posted a rather thoughtful response already...I'd delete it and start anew. Instead I'll just sit here and look and feel like a bit of an idiot.

Fail.

(and the coup de grace to the Fail, of course, is posting the explanation of the Fail, complete with explanation of how posting the explanation adds to the Fail)

[FunE1]

Interesting question as presented...

I don't believe that the purpose of a national justice system should be "revenge". I do believe that "punishment," however, for violating societal rules/norms IS acceptable. Now, I personally have NOT been the victim of any type of crime, minor or serious, so perhaps that type of experience might change my perspective, but mostly I believe the purpose of criminal justice is to identify those who have violated accepted laws and to ensure that they do not continue to do so. this is mostly so that the rest of society can feel safe, but also so that society can provide the perpetrator with some effort to help them understand their error(s) and how not to repeat it/them in the future.

In NO CASE do I believe the State (Government, local or national) should execute criminals for their crimes.

[FunE1]

I posted before reading Elian's response, which I find very much to agree with.

Sadly, like most things in America, we have turned the prison (and thus, the greater portion of the criminal justice) system into a money-making venture for various corporations (much like the health-care industry), so much so that our politicians are much more apt to do things that grow the prison population rather than actually solve the problems that create criminals in the first place.

[DuckiesDarling]

There is no easy answer for me on this Annika. I have a brother who has been in and out of jail and this time he's in jail because I called the cops and told them exactly where he was when he was on the run for more than a year. Behind bars he has no access to drugs so a chance for him to stay clean for longer than 3 months would be very welcome relief for my family.

Right now he is getting his life back on track. He finally got his GED and is actually cooking in the jail kitchen. We hope when he gets out he will go to culinary school. But this is a long time in coming waiting for him to "grow up".

Too long he went to jail for something and immediately upon getting out he did the same thing again. Stealing from my parents, forging checks, selling antiques that were my grandmas with a line smoother than any con man to antique dealers. True story, he got out of jail June 28, 2011. The very day he got out he "borrowed" my dad's truck to go to his soon to be ex wifes and get clothes. What we didn't find out until a few months later when Dad got a letter in the mail from the house insurance raising his deductible because of multiple claims. The day he got out of jail he filed a false police report alleging theft of several high dollar items my parents did own like a Gator, as well as things we never had owned in our lifetime. He got a check from insurance company and just bought drugs.

Has he learned his lesson? I don't know. I think since he is in for stealing a gun and dad called to report it to the cops he's learned he can no longer use my parents. But all his previous stints just taught him how to not get caught so fast.

Catch 22.. is there justice without revenge and is there really any safety anywhere?

[elian]

Your family is in my thoughts DD. My uncle was really struggling in much the same way - he finally got accepted into a treatment program with the VA out in Oregon, had one last scare where he really hit rock bottom and finally found a supportive community of folks. The VA gave him a budgeting class so he could learn whether it was more important to buy heat, pay rent or party.

He has done things he is not proud of in the past and alienated some people, I never thought I would see him outside of a halfway house but he really is doing good. He has a small faith community and he's even now married and doing well. He still feels some pain about the past but given the circumstances I am proud of who he has become.

Community based alternatives really can help. I don't doubt that the system is necessary but it is also a very blunt hammer and the tools it can use to seriously reach people and rehabilitate them are limited.

[pepperjack]

The idea of rehabilitation is a joke, a complete waste of time! God forgives....society never does. Even if a convicted felon works his way through the system,doing everything required, he's marked, blemished for the rest of his life! Once he's released, others see his past as an opportunity to be superior, lord it over him! Exploit him yet hold him down; and with the internet now & all the background searches....? No wonder " going off the grid" is becoming popular!

[elian]

Yes, of course that is true - some mistakes you will carry with you for life, have to explain them on every job interview, pray that you pass a rental application. I understand what you are saying about faith and unconditional love but in fact, I do know of a few local businesses that are willing to give people a second chance. It lifts my heart to drive by and see their parking lot so full of patrons that people are parking blocks away.

It occurs to me that everyone is fighting a hard battle and that the person I see making a mistake or behaving badly while driving needs love just as much as I do. Tomorrow I will be the one making the mistake and inadvertently cutting someone off in traffic probably. Life just isn't designed to be perfect..but it is good training to learn forgiveness, patience and other important lessons.

People may choose not to forgive, I cannot control other people, I can only control myself. Everyone looks for grand solutions to the problems we face "out there" but I submit that the problem isn't "out there" - the problem is inside ourselves. If each and every human being could give up greed and fear than there would be no need for war. That's a big IF...and then you say - "Oh, that task is IMPOSSIBLE!" - Is it? So my guilt and shame is too much for me to bear, I can never be "good enough" so I should let GOD deal with the mess of my own feelings? I should just give up trying to learn self-control, discipline, love for myself and others? Learning these things is HARD, it does NOT come easy - but it is worth ti.

The words sound harsh, but I mean no disrespect and I speak them out of love. I have felt the same frustration. This world is not perfect, WE are certainly not perfect - but we must continue to do what we believe is right. The outcome will be what it will be, either success or failure - don't be disappointed - the important thing is in the trying.

[void()]

In my opinion, there is no justice in our justice system and for the most part it is simply a means of furthering slavery and oppression. As for our wants, again in my opinion, it seems we desire vengeance over justice. I do believe, that yes, there are truly human monsters in the world. In my opinion, we need to lock these types up in a really deep forgettable hole to live their lives as rejected members of society whom may or may not feed / care for them in passing. This could be seen as an opportunity for the spiritually inclined to actually do a good deed, to practice forgiveness, compassion by enjoining a 'mission' to the prison/s.

In my opinion, marijuana use and limited growth, distribution, sale ought to be legalized. It could be regulated exactly like tobacco and taxed at similar rates. People would need to await until becoming a legally acceptable age, say twenty one as with drinking. A campaign for responsible use could be in place the same as with drinking, no driving stoned, no operating heavy equipment and so on. Make these enforceable via the use of fines and or regulation of business via higher insurance rates. Bottom line, it's illegal because of money. Enough research can dispel much of the the negative press and hype regarding it.

Having made use of marijuana legal, I believe, a drastic reduction of drug related crime and violence would occur. This would help curb major cartels as many would be content in use of marijuana and not desire other harder drugs. With reduction, possibly lose of the big lords of drugs, there would be no need to predicate a war against drugs. This "war" against drugs is a lost cause as it stands. And if one believes the politicos suggesting it is for the safety of their voters, then one may as well buy a heap of dung and call it a panacea. To continue a farcical "war" without consideration of compromise equates to continually beating one's head against a brick wall. Again, the bottom line is money and the cartels keep raking it in and putting into lead used to kill drug war soldiers and police.

It is a matter of reverse psychology. You tell a populace no, in absolute terms they are bound to throng to the object of the no. Compromise and then the populace realizes no thrill, or desire to do what is forbidden. This applied to The Prohibition and now to the issue of gun control as well, in much the same manner. So is it justice when a dumb Podunk hick can easily follow out the money and see the majority of the issue resolves itself to keeping a select few rolling in money, power, influence? Look up the Whiskey Rebellion, and study the actions of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. You too will soon begin to grasp the same or similar opinion as me. It boils down to money and its use as a tool of enslavement.

Controlling money is one of the key tactics of the C.I.A, and even in the Army operations manuals it is advised to establish control over currency or value/s. Another tactic involves control of media. Media proves vital as a lynch pin. For it is through use of media one may control religion, philosophy, thought and eventually money as required. Broadcast a message that it is wrong to market sheep on Tuesdays, and a populace will stop doing it. In the meanwhile you can market sheep on Tuesdays and effectively corner the market, then buy out the banks, the market itself. Quite a simple ploy actually, highly effective and efficient.

Reflect that tactic upon a drug war, a prohibition. Start following the money as it often leads to some interesting facts, views. Until we take money out of the equation, there's no justice, no governance. Give them their weapon back, we've seen what it causes, how it's used. Turn a mirror on them, lock them in a realm of mirrors and throw away the key. We have living to do, problems to solve, questions to answers, lives to save or improve. As one, we can do it and we don't need them as they are simply us as well.

[pepperjack]

Yes, of course that is true - some mistakes you will carry with you for life, have to explain them on every job interview, pray that you pass a rental application. I understand what you are saying about faith and unconditional love but in fact, I do know of a few local businesses that are willing to give people a second chance. It lifts my heart to drive by and see their parking lot so full of patrons that people are parking blocks away.

It occurs to me that everyone is fighting a hard battle and that the person I see making a mistake or behaving badly while driving needs love just as much as I do. Tomorrow I will be the one making the mistake and inadvertently cutting someone off in traffic probably. Life just isn't designed to be perfect..but it is good training to learn forgiveness, patience and other important lessons.

People may choose not to forgive, I cannot control other people, I can only control myself. Everyone looks for grand solutions to the problems we face "out there" but I submit that the problem isn't "out there" - the problem is inside ourselves. If each and every human being could give up greed and fear than there would be no need for war. That's a big IF...and then you say - "Oh, that task is IMPOSSIBLE!" - Is it? So my guilt and shame is too much for me to bear, I can never be "good enough" so I should let GOD deal with the mess of my own feelings? I should just give up trying to learn self-control, discipline, love for myself and others? Learning these things is HARD, it does NOT come easy - but it is worth ti.

The words sound harsh, but I mean no disrespect and I speak them out of love. I have felt the same frustration. This world is not perfect, WE are certainly not perfect - but we must continue to do what we believe is right. The outcome will be what it will be, either success or failure - don't be disappointed - the important thing is in the trying.

I understand your perspective, Elian. It's both idealistic & realistic. You mentioned the word greed,which prompted me to look back on this past week & I feel I have a perfect anecdote to illustrate it. We got hammered with the worst snowstorm in 30 years. The boss, bless his generous heart, decided to reward the skeleton crew that arrived for work with sandwiches & fixins from Subway. At 9AM, the fridge in the breakroom was stuffed with food; well before noon, it was all gone! I witnessed the least needy, most obese co-workers greedily converge on that refrigerator & annihilate what was there! Who needs to stuff his face with a footlong at 9:30 in the morning? Don't these people eat breakfast before coming to work? Needless to say, the workers most needy & deserving were left without come lunchtime. I'm still disgusted over this incident, hence,cynical of human nature & playing the devil's advocate.

[elian]

Food, ultimately should be thought of a fuel for the body, but here in America we have enough of it that we use food as a reward and a social exercise.

They aren't feeding their bodies, they are feeding their minds.

"The hunger for love is much more difficult to remove than the hunger for bread"

I can understand how you would feel frustrated and angry, over that - but I don't feel anger. I feel sad for the psychological issues that drive them to eat compulsively. They have such hunger that they eat as if they will never get another meal but the bounty of the Earth only goes away if we destroy it.

What can you say about your co-workers? "May all being be happy, may all beings be loved, may all beings be peaceful."

In other words, if they knew that the opportunity to feel good and be rewarded wasn't going to always go away then maybe they could be less selfish.

So you say, "Elian, I deserve to be rewarded too." Yes, you do...you are loved very much whether or not you have sub sandwich, the amount that you are loved is not worth more or less.

I love and appreciate you very much because these are all new ideas to me too. I am grateful that you let me write all of this and that you have the patience to read it and see if it makes sense.

It feels good when someone validates our own self worth, but the sense of love and happiness that you feel? ..ultimately it does not come from others, it comes from inside yourself.

If you feel discriminated against it is because you ALLOW yourself to feel discriminated against. Outward appearance can be deceiving. I have been kicked in the ass more than once for suggesting that someone else was poor or old. That person does not view themselves as poor or old and they made sure I understood that they still had dignity. Regardless of the circumstances on the outside, they were rich, generous, beautiful people on the inside.

I'm not sure whether or not your friends at work knew you were counting on one of those sandwiches for lunch - that is why it is important that we all learn to be considerate. Not to let others walk all over us, but that we should learn to help each other when we can - even if it makes our ego feel a little uncomfortable.

Mass shooting of people is one of the potential outcomes of not being considerate, but it's a two way street. One party disrespects the other to the extreme, the other one isolates itself or is isolated to the point of giving up on life.

Not that I'm saying you should blow anyone up over a refrigerator full of sandwiches.

Christians say, "Let go and let God", I will simply say that the universe generally finds a way to teach its lessons. We are an active participant but in the heat of anger isn't necessarily the best time to work things out.

The movie Amish Grace had a plot where the one Amish mother could not get over how easily the rest of the community forgave the death of her daughter. With a very anguished look on his face her husband finally said to her, "It is NOT EASY to FORGIVE, but if I don't I will keep carrying (destructive) hate in my heart (instead of divine love)"

..sorry for posting off topic..

[Lisa (va)]

I don't feel revenge should be apropriate, and realistically they are there to be punished for what they did, but at the same time you can punish them while at the same time giving them some sort of rehabilitation. Granted this rehab might not work with all the people, but at least they tried. An unfortunate thing is that after they did their punishment, for whatever it was, even if totally rehabilitated, no one gave effort to rehabilitate the folks on the outside. I am sure their are many good people that just made a big mistake, but no one wants to give them the benefit of the doubt: try finding a job with a record.

Lisa

[Velorex]

I for one love the eye for an eye mentality.

I guarantee if you put a murderer on trial and convict him, and his/her punishment was to be put in a room with the family of the victim, alone, for 10 minutes, and you aired the results, there would be alot less murders.

[voltaire]

I for one love the eye for an eye mentality.

I guarantee if you put a murderer on trial and convict him, and his/her punishment was to be put in a room with the family of the victim, alone, for 10 minutes, and you aired the results, there would be alot less murders.

*fewer* murders.

[voltaire]

Annika,

I have been a tentacle of the US legal system for 20 years. (I can't say "justice" because that is really a separate idea/ ) I also worked for a federal judge for a year and dealt with US and state prosucutors. The system was originally about vengeance and the idea of rehab of the offender was a later 19th century idea imported from England. The roots run deep and for all the talk of sending prisoners out into the world as changed people, the instinct of the judge and the jury is usually vengeance....especially when the crime is particularly horrible. This is, of course, my opinion but it is derived from 20 years of being in contact with that world.

[pepperjack]

Recently viewed the classic ' Cool Hand Luke ' during a bored, lonely, night. It's a classic because it still says a lot about human nature & the system! He was a petty criminal who wound up on a chain- gang & eventually died in that pathetic system of so -called justice! God forgives....society does not! Also read Papillon ( the story of the only known escapee from the infamous Devil's Island) while incarcerated in the worst cell block in the state! I know whereof I speak! I was told early on...I was just unfortunate to get caught.

[Lookatme]

I wonder, how many people's opinions are based on a working knowledge of the subject? How many of the posters have ever worked, in some fashion, in any of the branches of the American Judicial system? At least one says they have. At a minimum, I wonder how many people have been formally educated about the American legal system in some form of law classes? Not saying anyone is right or wrong, I just wonder if anyone takes the time to really educate themselves from all prospectives before they start promulgating, or voting or complaining. Does anyone read the story anymore, or just the headlines?

[Annika L]

I wonder, how many people's opinions are based on a working knowledge of the subject? How many of the posters have ever worked, in some fashion, in any of the branches of the American Judicial system? At least one says they have. At a minimum, I wonder how many people have been formally educated about the American legal system in some form of law classes? Not saying anyone is right or wrong, I just wonder if anyone takes the time to really educate themselves from all prospectives before they start promulgating, or voting or complaining. Does anyone read the story anymore, or just the headlines?

Wait a sec. Are you saying that in order to make a meaningful contribution to a conversation about our criminal justice system, we have to have taken law classes?

[Annika L]

Ok, so the poll I initially wanted to include with this thread would have posed the following scenario:

A pill is developed, which when ingested produces an orgasm, that is intense proportionate to the ingester's propensity to commit criminal wrongdoing. The after-effect of the pill is that the ingester no longer has *any* propensity to commit criminal activity...their criminal potential literally comes out of them. Clinical studies show this pill is 100% effective for the lifetime of the ingester...take the pill and you *will not* ever commit another crime as long as you live. Legislation is introduced that would give imprisoned individuals the option to take this pill and walk free.

I wanted to post the following 4 options:
(1) I am from the US and I would support this legislation in the US;
(2) I am from the US and I would NOT support this legislation in the US;
(3) I am not from the US and I would support this legislation in my country;
(4) I am not from the US and I would NOT support this legislation in my country.

Sadly, it is impossible to post the setup along with the question in a poll...otherwise, I would dearly like to see the results from such a poll.

Nonetheless, I would be interested in hearing any thoughts or discussions on the question I pose here (in addition to any others on my OP).

[Gearbox]

Annika sweet thing, does that mean you could go on a murder spree, get imprisoned, take the pill and walk free? Come along now! No bugger would be safe with THAT perfect crime setup!Give the pills to everyone at orgasm age!lol

[Lookatme]

No, what I am saying is that for it to be meaningful, it should at least be educated. For it to be meaningful people should know precisely what they are talking about. When I was growing up they used to say it like this.......If you know you talk, If you don't know shut.......................!!

[dafydd]

Justice, I guess that's what people want.
What is justice? "Just Ice" for some as Joni sang.
Do we want to live in an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth kinda world?
cos there wouldn't be many people with any eyes or teeth left.
I certainly felt cops in the US were more enforcers rather than the keepers of order, and that I felt like there were so many ways to get in trouble with the law.... U felt guilty when you've done nothing. I think that's cos Hollywood has influenced how we perceive cops and justice, in a pantomime fashion now.... And its why cops behave like they do.. And executions are just another show....
Hollywood is America, (and beyond) everything, utterly and always.

[dafydd]

No, what I am saying is that for it to be meaningful, it should at least be educated. For it to be meaningful people should know precisely what they are talking about. When I was growing up they used to say it like this.......If you know you talk, If you don't know shut.......................!!

... also often dictated by self-proclaimed experts in any given field, who don't want to be asked questions by 'thickie layman' in public which they themselves may not be able to answer.

[void()]

I've heard the opposite, those whom know do not speak. Can admit to my own ignorance to some degree. That aside, it is a freely available public forum. The original post asked for thoughts, opinions regarding justice in America. I expressed mine. Others express theirs. It is called open discussion.

[Annika L]

Annika sweet thing, does that mean you could go on a murder spree, get imprisoned, take the pill and walk free? Come along now! No bugger would be safe with THAT perfect crime setup!Give the pills to everyone at orgasm age!lol

Darling Geary, that is a beautiful point, and an important loophole well-worth sewing up. First, though, let's dispense with the idea of "giving" the pills to everyone...at the very least, in the US the thought of enforcing medication on every citizen that can change the way they think and act would meet with extreme resistance...it would never be politically feasible, and I can't imagine anyone would ever front such a notion.

But they certainly should be made *available* to anyone who wants to take one. So let's change the scenario so that pills are made generally available, free of charge; but the legislation being floated would make it so that anyone in prison *at the time the drug is released* could take it and go free. But this is the only time such an offer will be made. After this point, when a criminal is convicted and sentenced, they must take the pill (and then are punished...maybe for not thinking to take it voluntarily before committing their crime).

The point in the question is a matter that everyone decries the current state of our justice system (ironically, while simultaneously lauding it as the best in the civilized world)...but would/could we accept a system where we get total safety at the expense of a complete lack of revenge?

[Annika L]

No, what I am saying is that for it to be meaningful, it should at least be educated. For it to be meaningful people should know precisely what they are talking about. When I was growing up they used to say it like this.......If you know you talk, If you don't know shut.......................!!


Sam turned to Jack and said, "You're such an asshole!" Jack, caught off guard, retorted, "Did you just call me an asshole?" "No," replied Sam, without missing a beat, "I said you were an asshole."

You say that to be meaningful, a contribution should at least be educated. This follows your statement, which says "At a minimum, I wonder how many people have been formally educated about the American legal system in some form of law classes?" This pair of statements would in fact seem to suggest that unless we've had law classes, we can't make meaningful contributions.

[void()]

I choose option 2 in your scenario. In so sterilizing folks from ever possibly doing crime again, you effectively seem to play God and further remove freedom of choice. Yes, it may sound like a good idea to get rid of crime in such a way. What is the difference between this and sterilizing 'undesirables', which was done in here in the U.S. under the auspice of eugenics in the mid 1920's to late 1930's/ 1950's? This was much the same as what the nationalsozialistische deutsche arbeiterpartei (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party)did in Germany in elimination of Jews, Blacks, Homosexuals and other such 'undesirables'.

The more I see of today's 'modern world' the more inclined I am to agree with a comment my grandfather made during the second term of Bush, Jr.. The news reported that an Italian minister whom was a known fascist had came to visit the then President in order to make arrangements to continue some policy which either directly or indirectly resulted in human degradation. My grandfather's comment? "We have already fought that shit once, beat it. How can they not see it for the evil it remains?" He did serve during WWII.

And no, I'm not saying you're a Nazi, Annika. I am saying that perhaps the idea suggested may bear some grave consideration for its similar hauntings with what the Nazi did. I'm adamantly against such a notion, idea. You as a person are still a friend and hopefully can see I'm looking at the idea with a scope, not you.

[void()]

The point in the question is a matter that everyone decries the current state of our justice system (ironically, while simultaneously lauding it as the best in the civilized world)...but would/could we accept a system where we get total safety at the expense of a complete lack of revenge?

Smart Alec! Good way to pose dual questions and issues of thought. And yes, I call you a Smart Alec. :tongue:

[Annika L]

I choose option 2 in your scenario. In so sterilizing folks from ever possibly doing crime again, you effectively seem to play God and further remove freedom of choice. Yes, it may sound like a good idea to get rid of crime in such a way. What is the difference between this and sterilizing 'undesirables', which was done in here in the U.S. under the auspice of eugenics in the mid 1920's to late 1930's/ 1950's? This was much the same as what the nationalsozialistische deutsche arbeiterpartei (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party)did in Germany in elimination of Jews, Blacks, Homosexuals and other such 'undesirables'.

The more I see of today's 'modern world' the more inclined I am to agree with a comment my grandfather made during the second term of Bush, Jr.. The news reported that an Italian minister whom was a known fascist had came to visit the then President in order to make arrangements to continue some policy which either directly or indirectly resulted in human degradation. My grandfather's comment? "We have already fought that shit once, beat it. How can they not see it for the evil it remains?" He did serve during WWII.

And no, I'm not saying you're a Nazi, Annika. I am saying that perhaps the idea suggested may bear some grave consideration for its similar hauntings with what the Nazi did. I'm adamantly against such a notion, idea. You as a person are still a friend and hopefully can see I'm looking at the idea with a scope, not you.

Ah, the devil in the details. Damn him, damn him, ...oh wait...he's the devil already, isn't he?

Ok...I assume it's the second scenario you're objecting to, where I go too far in suggesting we *make* convicted criminals take the pill. If so, I get your objection. The first scenario didn't make the drug mandatory for anyone...only ever an option.

I withdraw the part about *making* new criminals take the pill...there's no reason to go that far to make my point.

So to be clear, nobody in this scenario *has* to take it. The point is that when the drug is released, all current prisoners are offered the choice to take it and go free. Do we approve or disapprove?

[darkeyes]

Ah, the devil in the details. Damn him, damn him, ...oh wait...he's the devil already, isn't he?

Ok...I assume it's the second scenario you're objecting to, where I go too far in suggesting we *make* convicted criminals take the pill. If so, I get your objection. The first scenario didn't make the drug mandatory for anyone...only ever an option.

I withdraw the part about *making* new criminals take the pill...there's no reason to go that far to make my point.

So to be clear, nobody in this scenario *has* to take it. The point is that when the drug is released, all current prisoners are offered the choice to take it and go free. Do we approve or disapprove?
Playing devil's advocate here no more... offenders have already had their rights to do as they please infringed by the law which society has put in place by being sought, apprehended, tied, punished (rehabilitated? Yea.. rite).. is enforcing the law by making the taking of a pill so very different? I assume we are talking of a single course treatment... a permanent course of pills is such a fiddly and mesys as well as an unreliable thing... it is an infringement of rights, but would it be an acceptable one if it eliminated wrong doing in society?? Already as part of the criminal justice system of many countries, even the liberal "democracies", some chemical treatment can and is given on a compulsory basis.. chemical castration for instance is not unknown... neither is drug treatment for the criminally insane... such a pill as u describe is not as the sterilisation of camp victims during ww2.. it is for quite aother purpose and is for treatment, not sterilisation and is not, I assume experimental and given only to Jewish or Roma or homosexuals or Communist or any other person jailed simply because the state didn't like them much....something to think about.. does the end justify the means? Is it an outrageous infringement of human rights? I can think of many drugs and chemicals that we who are not criminals take into our system and have no say about it.. it is legal and above board.. just something to exercise the pea brain. Annika sweetheart...

..and btw.. every nation on earth is primarily about societal vengeance when it comes to their penal systems... some are better and some worse than others... no explanation of the statement necessary.. at least not to u... I think u know pretty much how I feel about it..:)

[dafydd]

F, even our British government chemically castrate its citizens : Namley, the gay genius Alan Turing , who basically saved us all from the Nazis and then founded the modern computer age.
That happened in the 50s in England. Government only apologised for it a couple of years ago.
He killed himself in prison where they locked him up as thanks for cracking the German code and helping win the war.
He didnt want to grow breasts and have his dick fall off behind bars, so our Alan laced an apple with cyanide, and took a bite. Someone used that as a logo in deference to him, decades later.

[darkeyes]

Actually he didnt die in Prison Daffy.. he accepted chemical castration as an alternative to being sent to gaol... so in a sense, Turing's end is appropriate when considering Annika's little scenario...:)

[Gearbox]

Annika my lovely, I think I get what you are aiming for and how the pill would make it doable, but it would also take away prison as a deterent. Without vengence & punishment, there is no deterent apart from a persons own conscience (?). The pill would replace/fix that 'personal deterent', which IMO could solve a lot of problems artifficialy where society fails to solve naturaly. BUT do we really trust the 'Queen bee' gov with our drone subservience? What laws would be written if we couldn't break them? When would the pill enter water supplies? *SCREAM!*

[dafydd]

... ..he died in the prison of his soul then...

I guess being gay was worse than Hitler .. He must have met something within him that he couldn't fight... <sigh>

really F, your insistence on correcting minor facts, for historical accuracy..... it unsettles not just me..... but all those like me... the skim readers of quotable wiki knowledge. Xx

[Long Duck Dong]

Ok, so the poll I initially wanted to include with this thread would have posed the following scenario:

A pill is developed, which when ingested produces an orgasm, that is intense proportionate to the ingester's propensity to commit criminal wrongdoing. The after-effect of the pill is that the ingester no longer has *any* propensity to commit criminal activity...their criminal potential literally comes out of them. Clinical studies show this pill is 100% effective for the lifetime of the ingester...take the pill and you *will not* ever commit another crime as long as you live. Legislation is introduced that would give imprisoned individuals the option to take this pill and walk free.

I wanted to post the following 4 options:
(1) I am from the US and I would support this legislation in the US;
(2) I am from the US and I would NOT support this legislation in the US;
(3) I am not from the US and I would support this legislation in my country;
(4) I am not from the US and I would NOT support this legislation in my country.

Sadly, it is impossible to post the setup along with the question in a poll...otherwise, I would dearly like to see the results from such a poll.

Nonetheless, I would be interested in hearing any thoughts or discussions on the question I pose here (in addition to any others on my OP).


what can I say ? I have taken a human life..... and if I was offered such a pill, my reaction would be to ask, how can a pill define a crime....?

in my mind, I defended my home and family, at the cost of a human life... the justice system saw it as me taking a human life..... the legal system saw it as a ruling on a technicality that was later overturned by a court of appeal...... and I saw the world in a whole new light......

what I did was a crime, I disturbed a criminal in the act of committing a crime and with intentions of committing another crime, so I committed a criminal act myself.....who is truly the criminal ? the person who is already committing the crime or the person about to commit one...??? minority report, anybody ?.

I could not, in all honesty, support the legislation as one mans crime is another mans honesty, truth and justice... and too many people have been to jail for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time... or because their reality and truth is not the peace, love and light that people talk about, but the harsher reality of the understanding that some of ys are violent people that can and have taken human life and could do so again...... and that our crime against humanity as a criminal could also be defending and dying for our country, if we are a soldier, then we become a hero....

if I was able to have the pill offered as a personal choice, then I would also ask that we give people the right to reject the pill and remain behind bars for the term of their natural lives, with the right of choice, to take a pill that makes them no longer a threat to society..... a society that they also have no desire to live in and amongst, anymore.....

watch the movie demolition man..... then watch once were warriors........ one is a very true reality for me.... the other is the reality of what would happen if we try to create a * perfect * world..... one is a world that I would not ask anybody else to live in..... the other is a world that so many think I would fit into.....

[darkeyes]

... ..he died in the prison of his soul then...

I guess being gay was worse than Hitler .. He must have met something within him that he couldn't fight... <sigh>

really F, your insistence on correcting minor facts, for historical accuracy..... it unsettles not just me..... but all those like me... the skim readers of quotable wiki knowledge. Xx
One should get these things right, Daffy,, hardly a minor fact, but then we'll not quibble... but whether or not he died in the nick is pertinent to Annika's scenario and so of far more import than u seem to attach to it which is why I corrected u........and considering it a minor fact is rather like considering the victims of the holocaust prisoners who died in gaol...

..and Gear.. yet another minor, petty thing... if we are talking of voluntary taking of the little pill.. then there will still be a need for gaols for those who decide not to take them.. and when will the pill enter the water supply? As soon as it's cheaper and easier than the pills they give to everyone, good or bad just to keep them in line... more reliable than the absent minded morons of the general populace...

[dafydd]

What's Anika's scenario F?
....just give me the gist of it, okay braniac?

[elian]

Hey Annika, as long as taking the pill was a choice, fine..no problem. If it means that there would be less of a need for the institution of prison why not?

The second that someone decides that taking the pill is mandatory in any way, not a chance in hell I would support it. Also, there would have to be allowances for "asexual" people who could care less about orgasm.

Forcing someone to do something against their will is inhumane, giving them more options in not.

Co-incidently I have read about how certain species are bred over time to become more domesticated and "friendly" and that certain primates have adapted to using sexual release as an alternative to "costly" aggressive behavior.

Corollary to your question - let's say human beings have done enough genetic analysis to really figure out how to interpret the human genome, they have even figured out how to alter the code with accuracy. In the course of investigating scientists have found a gene that acts as a "kill switch" that might get rid of some "undesirable" segment of the population - should they use their knowledge to kill or not?

As a bi person i might have a different answer than a straight person would, unless..

Just for the record I am glad that humanity already sort of answered this question with World War II, of course it's a shame that they had to demoralize the Germans so much after World War I that they had to have a second war to start with.

I wonder if the answer would really be the same today? There is quite a fight going on right now over the Islamic "reformation" - who will win? The progressive folks or the "orthodox" ? A lot of people don't even think we should be involved at all. I for one think that women should have a right to basic education if they want it, but that's coming from the perspective of a bisexual westerner. I am sure there is plenty I don't understand.

[Annika L]

Ok, I know I've botched this thread in about 100 different ways...but I do find it interesting how everyone seems to want to dodge the point of it.

The gist of the scenario (for Dafydd) is that there is a way for a criminal to voluntarily take a pill that would ensure (100%) that they would never commit another crime as long as they live. That's the gist. That's it. Period. The *question* is whether you'd support letting people who were in jail at the time the pill was released to (voluntarily) take the pill and walk free.

I know the scenario I mentioned raises all kinds of juicy, fascinating questions. But:

The point is not to ask how to implement this pill. The point is not to ask whether to pursue research into producing this pill, or to explore the longterm implications of the existence of such a pill. The point is not to ask whether it's morally ok to force criminals to take the pill. The point is not even to ask whether *you* think society favors rehabilitation or vengeance. The point is to get a collection of individual opinions (hence I tried to give it as a poll) on whether *you personally* would be ok with rehabilitation with zero vengeance.

So all those other questions? Answer them any way you'd like. Assume the most insanely magically optimal scenario you'd like (first of all where the pill is even possible, but also where nobody abuses the pill, nobody introduces it into the water supply, nobody is pressured into taking it, where prisons still exist, where all prisons are abolished, where it doesn't matter what the international view of countries using the pill is or what the ramifications are of carrying said pill across national boundaries or the International Date Line, *whatever*). Answer them in whatever way it takes so that you could have an opinion on whether you'd be comfortable letting convicted criminals walk free if you *knew* they would/could not commit crimes.

[Annika L]

Playing devil's advocate here no more... offenders have already had their rights to do as they please infringed by the law which society has put in place by being sought, apprehended, tied, punished (rehabilitated? Yea.. rite).. is enforcing the law by making the taking of a pill so very different? I assume we are talking of a single course treatment... a permanent course of pills is such a fiddly and mesys as well as an unreliable thing... it is an infringement of rights, but would it be an acceptable one if it eliminated wrong doing in society?? Already as part of the criminal justice system of many countries, even the liberal "democracies", some chemical treatment can and is given on a compulsory basis.. chemical castration for instance is not unknown... neither is drug treatment for the criminally insane... such a pill as u describe is not as the sterilisation of camp victims during ww2.. it is for quite aother purpose and is for treatment, not sterilisation and is not, I assume experimental and given only to Jewish or Roma or homosexuals or Communist or any other person jailed simply because the state didn't like them much....something to think about.. does the end justify the means? Is it an outrageous infringement of human rights? I can think of many drugs and chemicals that we who are not criminals take into our system and have no say about it.. it is legal and above board.. just something to exercise the pea brain. Annika sweetheart...

..and btw.. every nation on earth is primarily about societal vengeance when it comes to their penal systems... some are better and some worse than others... no explanation of the statement necessary.. at least not to u... I think u know pretty much how I feel about it..:)

And Fran, my initial response to void's question was rather like yours. But on some additional thought, it occurred to me that this can be quite a serious issue that really should inform our support or lack thereof for a non-voluntary system. Many criminals commit crimes in order that they and their families can survive. I'm not talking about (most) violent crimes, and I'm not talking about white collar crime. But many steal so that they and their families can eat...and many of those really *don't* have suitable alternatives (I'm sorry to the pro-capitalist "just work harder and live a clean life" crowd, but not absolutely everyone is as Blessed with opportunities as you are). For those people, removing their ability to commit crimes would be tantamount to a death sentence...they might quite rationally prefer to serve out their sentence and then go back to their families and return to crime once more (and who knows? if they stay in jail, they could possibly even pick up valuable skills or education which would make a life without crime possible...whereas taking the pill and going home immediately might simply leave them desperate and without options). And much as I don't like the idea of having people who would commit crimes walking the streets, I do think that their level of desperation is a societal problem that each society needs to grapple with, rather than brush under the rug with a pill.

[pepperjack]

But then, I tend to make abstract mental connections: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/z/zager_and_evans/in_the_year_2525.html

[elian]

Got it, so the question you are asking is - how would *I* feel about releasing ALL prisoners who have supposedly ALREADY committed a crime, knowing that in the future they could never commit another crime?

Good question, isn't that sort of like a parole board?

So I wouldn't immediately say yes or no, I would have to consider these things to judge the "morality" someone's innocence:

1) Is the person already innocent?
2) Does the sentence fit the crime?
3) Is there a more productive way to show repentance other than rotting in a jail cell?
4) Is the person a physical danger to others?
5) Does the prisoner show genuine remorse?
6) Is there support for the person on the outside, do they have a family to help them, or do they need to be there to help their family?
7) Does the person need rehabilitation in order to be able to LIVE on the outside?

It's interesting because my first inclination was to think of how the victim of the crime would feel to know that someone was going to walk free, but the more I think about it in our current system, it isn't for the victim to decide just how severe the punishment will be. Boy, that will make for some awkward moments of people having to deal with actual forgiveness and coming to terms with a situation rather than denying it or feeling good about the vengeance. Maybe that's one thing we need in society - less denial and more processing the result of actual consequences. I hope people care a lot more about each other when that happens or the result is likely to be harsh.

The other thing that must be considered is how much energy society wants to continue to invest in locking people up and keeping them there, regardless of the severity of the crime.

[darkeyes]

And Fran, my initial response to void's question was rather like yours. But on some additional thought, it occurred to me that this can be quite a serious issue that really should inform our support or lack thereof for a non-voluntary system. Many criminals commit crimes in order that they and their families can survive. I'm not talking about (most) violent crimes, and I'm not talking about white collar crime. But many steal so that they and their families can eat...and many of those really *don't* have suitable alternatives (I'm sorry to the pro-capitalist "just work harder and live a clean life" crowd, but not absolutely everyone is as Blessed with opportunities as you are). For those people, removing their ability to commit crimes would be tantamount to a death sentence...they might quite rationally prefer to serve out their sentence and then go back to their families and return to crime once more (and who knows? if they stay in jail, they could possibly even pick up valuable skills or education which would make a life without crime possible...whereas taking the pill and going home immediately might simply leave them desperate and without options). And much as I don't like the idea of having people who would commit crimes walking the streets, I do think that their level of desperation is a societal problem that each society needs to grapple with, rather than brush under the rug with a pill.
*laffs*.. it was far from my initial response Annika., an none of it remotely reflects my own opinions on the matter... told u... I was playing devil's advocate. U should know me better than that:bigrin:!! I could go into an entire diatribe about poverty and the causes of crime which would cover ur concerns, and actually are quite pertinent whether or not we have a lil pill as a cure all... actually since the little pill is but hypothetical it is even more pertinent an important...but I have always admired ur compassion, understanding an realism on such issues.. pity so few others have anywhere near as much..:eek2:

[jamieknyc]

I don't know if anyone still reads the novel Clockwork Orange, but it had something similar to Annika's pill.

Be that as it may, let's clear up some misconceptions about the justice system, as it works in America:

Most cases are never prosecuted. District attorneys have limited resources, and even when a prosecutor is willing to prosecute, many cases get dropped because the victim can't be bothered to get involved. Prosecutors have an unlimited ability to dismiss cases.

Of those cases that do get prosecuted, over ninety per cent are resolved by plea bargains in which the defendant either receives no jail time, or in the case of serious offenders, greatly reduced jail time. Plea bargains in the US differ from those in Britain and other countries, in that an American prosecutor has the ability to make offers on the sentence. British prosecutors can agree to reduce the charges, but a judge can still sentence the defendant who takes a plea to incarceration.

Few defendants other than violent felony offenders and those facing serious narcotics charges are likely to be sentenced to prison terms. Since American criminals rarely get sentenced to serious jail time until they commit a serious crime, small-time offenders like car thieves and local drug pushers tend to accumulate much longer rap sheets than their counterparts in other countries. States also have a limited amount of prison space, so many defendants beat the system simply because there is nowhere to put them if the state presses charges.

[pepperjack]

I don't know if anyone still reads the novel Clockwork Orange, but it had something similar to Annika's pill.

Be that as it may, let's clear up some misconceptions about the justice system, as it works in America:

Most cases are never prosecuted. District attorneys have limited resources, and even when a prosecutor is willing to prosecute, many cases get dropped because the victim can't be bothered to get involved. Prosecutors have an unlimited ability to dismiss cases.

Of those cases that do get prosecuted, over ninety per cent are resolved by plea bargains in which the defendant either receives no jail time, or in the case of serious offenders, greatly reduced jail time. Plea bargains in the US differ from those in Britain and other countries, in that an American prosecutor has the ability to make offers on the sentence. British prosecutors can agree to reduce the charges, but a judge can still sentence the defendant who takes a plea to incarceration.

Few defendants other than violent felony offenders and those facing serious narcotics charges are likely to be sentenced to prison terms. Since American criminals rarely get sentenced to serious jail time until they commit a serious crime, small-time offenders like car thieves and local drug pushers tend to accumulate much longer rap sheets than their counterparts in other countries. States also have a limited amount of prison space, so many defendants beat the system simply because there is nowhere to put them if the state presses charges.


Really? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[void()]

Ah, the devil in the details. Damn him, damn him, ...oh wait...he's the devil already, isn't he?

Ok...I assume it's the second scenario you're objecting to, where I go too far in suggesting we *make* convicted criminals take the pill. If so, I get your objection. The first scenario didn't make the drug mandatory for anyone...only ever an option.

I withdraw the part about *making* new criminals take the pill...there's no reason to go that far to make my point.

So to be clear, nobody in this scenario *has* to take it. The point is that when the drug is released, all current prisoners are offered the choice to take it and go free. Do we approve or disapprove?

Still disapprove because it's really not a choice. Take pill, go free. Don't take, do time. A logically reasonable person would not want to do time. Unless of course, you just assume they're all reasonably logical, or all flipping nut jobs. See, it's still coming back to an absolute of who plays judge. If you choose one or the other, you're damned either way. And it's the same for the one choosing to take a pill or not. *chuckles* I'm sorry. It's just a really tough notion to try saying 'yeah, okay that'd be nice to try".

[void()]

But then, I tend to make abstract mental connections: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/z/zager_and_evans/in_the_year_2525.html

Nice. I saw a you tube video of this in one of the original televised performances. Quite a hauntingly memorable tune and seemingly prophetic in many ways, and not in many others.

[Annika L]

Still disapprove because it's really not a choice. Take pill, go free. Don't take, do time. A logically reasonable person would not want to do time.

Well I guess I gotta just disagree here. I think there's a pretty complex trade-off between the advantages of getting out of jail free and the disadvantages of sacrificing a *piece* of your free will. It should not be a clear-cut choice in any reasonably thoughtful person's mind (not that I assume all criminals are reasonably thoughtful people). As I pointed out in my note to Fran, a choice to leave jail early could amount to a choice for an early death or inability to support one's family. But you're welcome to weigh things differently.

But I still see this part of the discussion as a dodge of the real question: "I don't like this idea; not *necessarily* because it lets people off without punishment (though that could be part of it), but because it doesn't *really* offer people a choice."

Oh, and for the record, I don't actually play god...I just have god-like tendencies now and again *smile and wave*.

[Annika L]

*laffs*.. it was far from my initial response Annika., an none of it remotely reflects my own opinions on the matter... told u... I was playing devil's advocate. U should know me better than that:bigrin:!! I could go into an entire diatribe about poverty and the causes of crime which would cover ur concerns, and actually are quite pertinent whether or not we have a lil pill as a cure all... actually since the little pill is but hypothetical it is even more pertinent an important...but I have always admired ur compassion, understanding an realism on such issues.. pity so few others have anywhere near as much..:eek2:

I must say your post at the top of this page confused me on several levels. "Playing devil's advocate here no more..." suggested to me pretty clearly that you were *not* playing devil's advocate (would adding a clarifying comma be *so* dreadful?); the uncharacteristic sentiments; the uncharacteristic accusation of pea-brainedness; all followed by an assumption that I knew how you felt. I probably should have simply ignored the post, but felt that the thoughts that consideration of void's initial objections raised were worth putting to the page.

[Annika L]

Got it, so the question you are asking is - how would *I* feel about releasing ALL prisoners who have supposedly ALREADY committed a crime, knowing that in the future they could never commit another crime?

Good question, isn't that sort of like a parole board?

So I wouldn't immediately say yes or no, I would have to consider these things to judge the "morality" someone's innocence:

1) Is the person already innocent?
2) Does the sentence fit the crime?
3) Is there a more productive way to show repentance other than rotting in a jail cell?
4) Is the person a physical danger to others?
5) Does the prisoner show genuine remorse?
6) Is there support for the person on the outside, do they have a family to help them, or do they need to be there to help their family?
7) Does the person need rehabilitation in order to be able to LIVE on the outside?

It's interesting because my first inclination was to think of how the victim of the crime would feel to know that someone was going to walk free, but the more I think about it in our current system, it isn't for the victim to decide just how severe the punishment will be. Boy, that will make for some awkward moments of people having to deal with actual forgiveness and coming to terms with a situation rather than denying it or feeling good about the vengeance. Maybe that's one thing we need in society - less denial and more processing the result of actual consequences. I hope people care a lot more about each other when that happens or the result is likely to be harsh.

The other thing that must be considered is how much energy society wants to continue to invest in locking people up and keeping them there, regardless of the severity of the crime.

I think the comparison to a parole board falls flat. A parole board considers the likelihood of a relapse, and make a decision to let a person out conditionally. Here, we know there is 0% chance of relapse, and we let them out unconditionally, because we know they'll do no damage out.

On your questions:
(1) shouldn't matter (nor can you know)...if they're innocent, they have little to lose by taking the pill...and this gives a way for an innocent person to leave jail, who otherwise might not have such an option;
(2) define "sentence fits the crime". The whole notion is kind of based on (a) punishment and (b) trying to achieve safety. If you remove (b), what's left of the point of (a)? Just revenge, right? Do we as a society really want to *sanction* the institutionalization of revenge?
(3) a person's repentance should be between them and whatever entity exists that cares about that repentence. I don't believe doing time is at all about "showing repentance". You do your time for whatever reason, and then you get out regardless of how repentant you are.
(4) Not if they take the pill.
(5) See (3).
(6) Would vary by individual and should factor heavily into each individual's decision as to whether to take the pill. But should not affect my support or lack of support for them having the option to decide.
(7) Pretty much the same as my answer to (6).

Having said all of that, I suspect that we are looking at these questions in quite different ways. I would be curious to hear more of your perspective on this.

[darkeyes]

I must say your post at the top of this page confused me on several levels. "Playing devil's advocate here no more..." suggested to me pretty clearly that you were *not* playing devil's advocate (would adding a clarifying comma be *so* dreadful?); the uncharacteristic sentiments; the uncharacteristic accusation of pea-brainedness; all followed by an assumption that I knew how you felt. I probably should have simply ignored the post, but felt that the thoughts that consideration of void's initial objections raised were worth putting to the page.
For want of a nail, Annika.. apologies..:kiss:

[jamieknyc]

You have to be brought into daily personal contact with the system to understand how the American system of revolving-door justice creates incentives to commit further crimes, until the criminals 'graduate' from minor offenses to serious ones that draw jail time. This is impossible to explain to Europeans, who tend to assume that people who are caught committing crimes will be sent to jail. Try explaining to a European that even in law-and-order New York, no one goes to jail for stealing a car. In America, though, how often do you see someone charged with a serious crime who doesn't have a rap sheet? Remember that incarceration reflects only those who were caught and imprisoned, and for every criminal who is incarcerated there are a large number of others still out on the street committing more crimes.

If you think of crime in economists's terms, criminals do what they do because it offers a better return compared to getting a job, if you are willing to take a fairly small degree of risk. In Europe, the risk of being caught, prosecuted and imprisoned is high enough to prevent most street crime. In New York, they succeeded in stopping crime not by incarcerating people, but by ordering the NYPD to aggressively hassle the street elements. Other cities and states do not have the resources of 'Bloomberg's Army.'

[voltaire]

I think Jamie is making some very good points here and before he mentioned it I was going to note the similarity to one of the key elements of A Clockwork Orange. Also, US states are different from each other and some cities/states have a higher tolerance for plea bargains than others. But yes, in most places the vast majority of minor crimes result in probation. Also, where I live (an outpost of the Third World) a very large number of crimes are committed by juveniles -- who are treated differently from adult offenders.


And to address the issue of law classes to understand this mess....I have a law degree and it still is a mess to me.

[jamieknyc]

I am not a criminal defense lawyer, but I admit I have done my part to help people beat the system numerous times. And yes, they were guilty.

[Gearbox]

Here in the UK, you can share a cell with a murderer if you are jailed for non payment of fines. You'd stand a better chance getting away with murder, than with fraud. Prison is a warning to others and not just a punishment. The 'pill' quashes that! Not only would robbing banks be worth the risk, but after taking the pill, you'd be one up on the non-pilled in a job interview involving finances.lolBUT (I know Annika is sighing right now.lol) I'd vote NO to forgiving prisoners. Not due to MY need for revenge, but on behalf of those that were abused (not the government).

[jamieknyc]

In the US, crimes of a purely monetary nature rarely draw serious jail time in state court systems unless large sums of money are involved. Stealing and fraud are relatively minor offenses in most states. If you are convicted in federal court under a federal white-collar statute you will get serious jail time, but in state prison systems the vast majority of prisoners aer serving time for violent crimes or narcotics offenses.

[tenni]

Hi Jamie
Out of curiousity /clarity, what would you consider "serious time"? more than 5 years? more that ten years ? or ?

I think that the original question has had twists and turns. I'm a bit lost.

Safety or revenge from a Justice system?
It is probably a combination but I would want safety and rehabilitation. Perhaps, consequences rather than revenge but it may be difficult to separate them. In my country, we do not have capital punishment and therefore any form of revenge is dealt with loss of rights and removal from society. That helps with the safety aspect. It is a form of consequence rather than revenge punishment. Some may see it as punishment though.

As far as the pill situation,

"when ingested produces an orgasm, that is intense proportionate to the ingester's propensity to commit criminal wrongdoing. The after-effect of the pill is that the ingester no longer has *any* propensity to commit criminal activity.."

I'll try to put on my Annika hat ;) I believe that you are stating that the orgasm is as strong as the persons "tendency" to commit criminal wrong doing. Would this then be for criminals who have committed at least one crime? The repeat offender is what you are discussing? If a person has not committed a crime, they would have no propensity to commit one? or would they? How would we know if they are "new" to being a criminal?

If that is true, it does seem to be helpful to preventing further crimes. As someone has pointed out the option to remain in jail is still there. Why would a person not want to have the best orgasm and be free from being imprisoned for the rest of their life?

[Annika L]

BUT I'd vote NO to forgiving prisoners. Not due to MY need for revenge, but on behalf of those that were abused (not the government).

Sighs aside Geary, this response actually addresses the question. So thank you for that. So we as a society should punish people, not as a deterrent, but because they have offended others...and those offended others have a need to see them punished. If others feel similarly, this suggests to me that we should abandon pretenses of rehabilitation, since even if we *knew* we could achieve 100% effective rehabilitation (i.e., in the very best rehabilitation scenario imaginable), we would not be satisfied...and it's pretty clear that we don't believe we can achieve anything like that best case.

It's worth noting, though Gear, that in the "final" scenario I put out, we only let people out of jail who were in *at the time the pill was released*. I agreed with the loophole you mentioned before, and retracted that part of it. So prison is still a threat, and the risk would be the same as ever.

[Annika L]

Safety or revenge from a Justice system?
It is probably a combination but I would want safety and rehabilitation. Perhaps, consequences rather than revenge but it may be difficult to separate them. In my country, we do not have capital punishment and therefore any form of revenge is dealt with loss of rights and removal from society. That helps with the safety aspect. It is a form of consequence rather than revenge punishment. Some may see it as punishment though.

As far as the pill situation,

"when ingested produces an orgasm, that is intense proportionate to the ingester's propensity to commit criminal wrongdoing. The after-effect of the pill is that the ingester no longer has *any* propensity to commit criminal activity.."

I'll try to put on my Annika hat ;) I believe that you are stating that the orgasm is as strong as the persons "tendency" to commit criminal wrong doing. Would this then be for criminals who have committed at least one crime? The repeat offender is what you are discussing? If a person has not committed a crime, they would have no propensity to commit one? or would they? How would we know if they are "new" to being a criminal?

If that is true, it does seem to be helpful to preventing further crimes. As someone has pointed out the option to remain in jail is still there. Why would a person not want to have the best orgasm and be free from being imprisoned for the rest of their life?



Well :oh: I can't blame anyone for being a little lost on the state of this thread, and the question posed in it.

For what it matters, the orgasm is as strong as the person's *innate* tendency to commit crime (what they are likely to do); not their *empirical* tendency to commit crime (what they have done). If there is no way you would every commit a crime in your life, the pill would have no effect whatsoever (poor you). If you're apt to commit lots of crimes (don't ask me how the pill knows this...it's magic), the orgasm would be quite intense. Doesn't matter whether you've ever committed a crime previously; if you would in the future, the orgasm is still there...but it takes away all likelihood that you ever actually will. So from a strictly Utilitarian point of view, it would be expedient to (as Gear suggested a while back) give the pill to everyone (in or out of prison) old enough to orgasm.

The reason for adding the orgasm to the scenario, btw, was *nearly* superficial...there were two reasons:
(a) I wanted to make it clear-cut just *how* non-punative this is...it is *so* non-painful that it is in fact quite pleasurable (and the more you "belong" in jail, the more pleasurable it is); and
(b) this is bisexual.com, and I thought the titillation factor could add interest in the question :tongue:.

As to whether it's punishment or not...I see it (frankly) as one kind of punishment vs. another. I think I've already addressed (enough to spark the imagination anyway) why a person might choose to forego the orgasm and stay in jail. Basically, it amounts to giving up a slice of your free will...and could have all kinds of unforeseeable consequences, including your own untimely demise.

Oh...and I meant to add...tenni, you look *darling* in that hat!

[elian]

It is very tempting at first to say, "let them all walk" but that might be too simple.

Do I really think that human beings should be in the business of judging the life and death of other people? Not really, but for the benefit of society we lock up people who pose a direct threat to others (and also plenty of others who don't). I think that detention alternatives are a very good idea for people who do not pose a violent threat. I have a friend whose life really is screwed up because of being abused by the system so I do have some compassion for people who have made mistakes that primarily affect their own lives but don't have enough power to walk.

In the US system it seems that the money and influence you have in society do affect the degree you are prosecuted under the law..

If we are going to live as a community there have to be baseline principles or rules, and if you break those rules there should be consequences. People have free will, they band together in groups to promote survival but the group itself will not survive if it is abused.

Whether they orgasm or not people still deal with a myriad of psychological and physiological issues - addiction for one.

On repentance, IF the person has "wronged" the community they should either be forgiven outright by the community or the person should try to seek amends with the community to the best of their ability. People may not commit crime but they still make plenty of mistakes and that can lead to animosity in the group. The corollary is figuring out a way to best use the talents and potential of people. It's hard to feel like you have productive self worth if (for example) there are no jobs with your skills.

So if we have a magic "happy" pill then obviously we also care enough to make sure that people are healthy and trained in society with a needed skill... (Hence the title of my new seminal work, "The problem with VIAGRA." **cough, cough** )..

You could get into some really far out discussions about euthanasia and all sorts of weird stuff if you follow all the tangents of "re-working" society to be something different than what we have now.

Having said all of this, my original response hasn't changed. As long as they are free to choose I would support it. The minute you decide to force it on someone I object. I feel the same way about forced sterilization and (sorry) abortion. As compassionate as I would like to be, there are some very hard choices that people sometimes have to make in their lives and yes, society does have to live with the fallout of that.

None of us has a monopoly on what the "ultimate utopia" should be. If you give me another 500 lifetimes maybe I would feel confident enough to judge. Until then, since we are ALL struggling in one way or another I will do my best to show loving compassion but that's not a license for anyone to just walk all over me any time they want.

I have a large personal issue with the thought of not having control over my own destiny, but absolute control over anything is a powerful illusion..I do not live in a vacuum.

So if my parents gave me a pill (or cut my foreskin, or baptised me catholic, or called me a boy), who am I to deny it? These are the sort of semi-erotic, sadistic, masochistic fantasies that wake me up panting (and not in a good way). Let's just say I've had plenty of dreams where I was forced to either endure or participate in not so nice things. Better to learn in dreams than to experience them in the real world. - aggh (shudders)


I think the comparison to a parole board falls flat. A parole board considers the likelihood of a relapse, and make a decision to let a person out conditionally. Here, we know there is 0% chance of relapse, and we let them out unconditionally, because we know they'll do no damage out.

On your questions:
(1) shouldn't matter (nor can you know)...if they're innocent, they have little to lose by taking the pill...and this gives a way for an innocent person to leave jail, who otherwise might not have such an option;
(2) define "sentence fits the crime". The whole notion is kind of based on (a) punishment and (b) trying to achieve safety. If you remove (b), what's left of the point of (a)? Just revenge, right? Do we as a society really want to *sanction* the institutionalization of revenge?
(3) a person's repentance should be between them and whatever entity exists that cares about that repentence. I don't believe doing time is at all about "showing repentance". You do your time for whatever reason, and then you get out regardless of how repentant you are.
(4) Not if they take the pill.
(5) See (3).
(6) Would vary by individual and should factor heavily into each individual's decision as to whether to take the pill. But should not affect my support or lack of support for them having the option to decide.
(7) Pretty much the same as my answer to (6).

Having said all of that, I suspect that we are looking at these questions in quite different ways. I would be curious to hear more of your perspective on this.

[void()]

Well I guess I gotta just disagree here. I think there's a pretty complex trade-off between the advantages of getting out of jail free and the disadvantages of sacrificing a *piece* of your free will. It should not be a clear-cut choice in any reasonably thoughtful person's mind (not that I assume all criminals are reasonably thoughtful people). As I pointed out in my note to Fran, a choice to leave jail early could amount to a choice for an early death or inability to support one's family. But you're welcome to weigh things differently.

But I still see this part of the discussion as a dodge of the real question: "I don't like this idea; not *necessarily* because it lets people off without punishment (though that could be part of it), but because it doesn't *really* offer people a choice."

Oh, and for the record, I don't actually play god...I just have god-like tendencies now and again *smile and wave*.

LOL Sorry, no I'm not meaning to dodge the question exactly. I do not like the idea because at first look it does seem to not offer a clear choice. It does seem to say that some entity of society acts as judge over others and can remove the choice those others appear to have.

Note the use of seem here. One can see many views in this idea. Here is one I was reading about elsewhere. actually two, but culminated together by one author.

"Knowledge can never eradicate the conflicts of the human world, or
produce harmony where there are conflicting goals to start with. Because
knowledge is used by human beings as a tool to achieve whatever it is
they want to achieve"

"The idea that humans are by nature free is one of the most harmful
fictions that’s ever been promoted anywhere."

-- John Gray

Giving consideration to those ideas in conjunction with the one you posit, ahem, is just one of those warped and twisted 'larger picture' musings my therapists nudge me away from. Another one is the soldier's paradox, "them or me". Ultimately I believe there should be only we, no us and them.

[Puts up the God robe back in the prop closet, is getting dizzy from all the galaxy making. ;)]

So, I think we in some way do agree. We may disagree on this issue and that's fine. I do not like the idea, simply because people as individuals often make bad choices, someone else gets to play nanny for them. And to me that appears what your idea suggests. I understand you do not think so. I guess we'll have to put up our dukes now and begin a war of trolling one another which lasts for decades. *chuckles*

[elian]

You know Annika, it's sort of fun taking a very long time stacking up my blocks to build a beautifully ornate tower and then watching you come in and knock all of them over.. it's actually very educational.. I'm not disappointed at all since I was never a big fan of ivory towers to start with.

[Annika L]

You know Annika, it's sort of fun taking a very long time stacking up my blocks to build a beautifully ornate tower and then watching you come in and knock all of them over.. it's actually very educational.. I'm not disappointed at all since I was never a big fan of ivory towers to start with.

I'm not sure whether to feel vaguely gratified and backhandedly complimented or aghast in the realization of what a terrible person I am. I'm sorry if I knocked over something you thought beautiful. The purpose was to engage in discussion; not to destroy something you held valuable.

[elian]

I'm not sure whether to feel vaguely gratified and backhandedly complimented or aghast in the realization of what a terrible person I am. I'm sorry if I knocked over something you thought beautiful. The purpose was to engage in discussion; not to destroy something you held valuable.

Yes, sorry I thought it was slightly dubious to post my comment but I could not help but write it down once it occurred to me. My simple mind finds great enjoyment in discovering parallel patterns (why do you think I got into information technology?)

I am not offended at all and I hope that you aren't either - it's hard work to consider (or reconsider) my position but it's worthwhile. If I didn't want to hear your opinion I wouldn't have participated in the discussion. We need other people to point out the flaws in our design so that we can build stronger.

What I find beautiful is the art of debate, hearing the perspective of other people in a constructive way and looking at the world through the kaleidescope of other people's world view. I certainly cannot say that every idea I've ever had is beautiful, or even that most ideas I hold are originally mine. I've exposed myself to a lot of new ideas by being immersed in different sources. The ones that resonate with me the most are the ones that seem to stick.

Please proceed, when I am sufficiently offended you will know by my use of capital letters and many symbols.. What is it that people say, "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted?" -smiles/hugs-

[void()]

I'm not sure whether to feel vaguely gratified and backhandedly complimented or aghast in the realization of what a terrible person I am. I'm sorry if I knocked over something you thought beautiful. The purpose was to engage in discussion; not to destroy something you held valuable.

Hehehe. He told me he loved watching you knock over the blocks in a private message. I'm much in agreement. It is good to challenge ideas and explore them. That does not mean I now magically like the idea you posted. I do not like it. To me it seems vile and inhumane. At the same time I am able to concede that your idea has made reconsider a lot of other ideas. For example, an idea involving Silly Putty eggs, emptied then resold. Don't ask. LOL

[elian]

Well in any event, I did learn a lot from the discussion, thanks for your help!

[darkeyes]

Me general opinion on all of this, nail included, Annika:)!

I agree with Voidie... I don't like anything which tinkers with the mind instinctively. We are far too creative a species to suppress our natural creativity with mind altering chemicals. I don't even like the thought of offering it to criminals on a voluntary basis. Much criminality, as Annika has pointed out, is born of necessity and despair. Far better to channel that creativity into something constructive and reward people accordingly. Sadly, our society's masters, for good or ill, with a socio-economic system which insists on large scale unemployment and poverty, would rather have the poor and underprivileged on such a scale and the resultant, huge criminal class, than put in the effort, take the time and put resources into creating a society of proper opportunity and creativity. That is far less profitable for them than the status quo...Such opportunity and creativity is currently stilted to favour those who rule, not anyone else, an much is stifled because opportunity is denied by both circumstance and design.

Every society has a punitive justice system based primarily on revenge. Some like Norway and the Netherlands are much less so than for instance the UK or the US, and certainly than for instance Russia or China. Some societies put considerable resources into rehabilitation and have good success.. some talk about it and play at it, but it is half hearted at best. For some, the punishment is the rehabilitation. The more fair a society, the less crime seems to be the case as instanced by Scandinavia.. these are imperfect societies and crime does exist, but in general these are societies with much lower crime rates than less fair societies. Rehabilitation is part of the justice process and recidivism is lower than most other countries. Personally, I would do away with most prisons and create a network of rehabilitation centres where those convicted of crime could be given the opportunity to be properly rehabilitated, Some people cannot be rehabilitated, but that does not mean we do put the effort into trying, I firmly believe most can.

Large numbers of people in the UK and other countries are given custodial sentences for relatively minor offences with consequences which far outweigh the seriousness of their act, and as far as possible we should avoid use of custodial sentencing, but allow people to stay at home, with their families and going to work as usual, but attending rehabilitation centres as part of their "punishment" where trained personnel can work with them to prevent as far as possible any return to crime. For more serious crime, especially violent crime, rehabilitation should be residential, or if u prefer, custodial, not purely as punishment, but with real effort and resource being invested into their rehabilitation, in both their interests and the interests of wider society.. society does need protecting from its worst elements, but that does not mean we lock them up an throw away the key... nor may I say, does it mean we string them up or do them in judicially as some would quite happily prefer.

All this work and expense I hear u say, when a little pill will do it all for us at a thousandth of the cost? Indeed so.. such is the price of ensuring we retain free will, and such is the price of making a better and more fair society. I know.. I'm a daft wishy washy liberal who is soft on crime.. which isn't so..I am no liberal (in the sense Americans think of the word) and am not soft on crime.. I am quite hard on the causes of crime even if many won't agree with what I see as the causes of crime in a lifetime of Sundays, never mind a month. Until we deal with the root causes of crime, we will never properly deal with it.. few are born criminal an we must look for other reasons than simply that a person is bad because he or she fell into crime an we must create a world where opportunity for all makes it worth while for them not to feel that crime is worth while......until then all we can do is fight a holding action and we will see little real progress.

Punitive punishment is such a waste of human resources.. it is also a massive waste of financial for there is little constructive return to our society. By properly investing in rehabilitation, while accepting that not all can or will be rehabilitated, the investment in people and money will repay our society ten fold at the very least, and even those criminals who we must keep in "prison", far fewer than is currently the case, should not just be locked up and forgotten about, but encouraged to be constructive within the prison system, and use their creativity for the good of both themselves and of society. Prisons, such as will remain, do not have to be an should not be inhuman and inhumane jungles.

So I don't like the little pill.. whether taken voluntarily or compulsorily... I value too much human freedom of thought an creativity.. and believe that as a society we have an obligation to encourage it to flower in all its glory for the benefit of humankind an the wider world. To o that we have to nurture it an create the conditions where all of humanity can use their creativity an freedom of thought for all our benefit.. a punitive justice system does not to allow that, and the little pill, in its own way, will smother it even more. We should not have a system of justice base on revenge as now, but one which works to aid those who have offended against society to use their talents for much greater benefit than just being locked up and stewing in a cell 23 hours a day as often happens now... what better protection of society than bringing into its bosom those who have offended against it and allowing them to be a proper part of it, with proper opportunities to make a good life free of crime, and not divorced and isolated from it?

..and none of the above ignores the victims of crime... quite the contrary... all victims should an must be given the maximum support and all who perpetrate crime should be made fully aware of the seriousness of what they have done ..what I suggest gives victims the highest of priority because it intended a way of making sure that as far as possible there are far fewer of them for society to have to support and far fewer criminals for society to need to rehabilitate and/or punish.

Controversial, sure... but no more so than the systems of punitive justice base on vengeance which our societies use now should be... they really are working ain't they? ..an the little pill? Well.... we can always see if it is any good for headaches in smaller doses...:)

[Annika L]

I appreciate peoples' thoughts here! (And Elian, I'm happy to hear that you were not traumatized by my response to your post :) )

I do find it interesting that people object so to voluntary usage of the pill on grounds of free will: basically, you want to restrict their free will to take a pill that would impair their free will. Seems like circular/hypocritical reasoning to me.

[darkeyes]

I appreciate peoples' thoughts here! (And Elian, I'm happy to hear that you were not traumatized by my response to your post :) )

I do find it interesting that people object so to voluntary usage of the pill on grounds of free will: basically, you want to restrict their free will to take a pill that would impair their free will. Seems like circular/hypocritical reasoning to me.
We do many things to prevent people doing things of their own free will Annika.. it is not a hypocrisy to prevent a person from doing something which we believe in time will prove to be of greater harm than good, not to themselves, but to society as a whole... that is a subjective judgement we all must make, for one person's good is another's bad... for instance, we prevented people from owning slaves, which was an infringement of the human rights and free will of a whole class of people to infringe on the rights an free will of another.. the slave owning classes upon the slaves themselves.. some still think it was bad to free the slaves even now.. sometimes we must infringe on free will and human rights to defend free will and human rights.. not so clear cut is it, hey?

[Annika L]

We do many things to prevent people doing things of their own free will Annika.. it is not a hypocrisy to prevent a person from doing something which we believe in time will prove to be of greater harm than good, not to themselves, but to society as a whole... that is a subjective judgement we all must make, for one person's good is another's bad... for instance, we prevented people from owning slaves, which was an infringement of the human rights and free will of a whole class of people to infringe on the rights an free will of another.. the slave owning classes upon the slaves themselves.. some still think it was bad to free the slaves even now.. sometimes we must infringe on free will and human rights to defend free will and human rights.. not so clear cut is it, hey?

Yes, Fran, we do restrict peoples' free will. But we don't cite our support of the free will of the people whose free will we are trying to restrict as the reason for doing it.

It seems I need to be extremely clear here about my own feelings about this scenario...for your sake Fran, for Elian's and void's sake, for jamie's sake (the comparison to A Clockwork Orange is not lost on me at all...read it when I was about 16), and possibly others:

I am *not* suggesting the existence of this pill would bring us closer to a utopia...my feelings are quite the reverse. The scenario I paint is quite *dystopian*. I sincerely hope that no such pill ever exists, although I fear that research in the more medical branches of psychology moves us daily closer to things that are either equivalent or at least just as terrifying. This was NOT one of those posts where the poster says, "hey, I think I've got the solution to this problem that the best human minds have been struggling with for centuries!"

No. I was *trying* to get insight into the difference between what people say or think they believe (pertaining to our penal system) and what they *actually* feel and believe, by offering the scenario for consideration: suppose (pretend, make believe, imagine, envision) we *are* living in that dystopian future, and this pill *already* exists and has just become available to the public (criminal and non-criminal alike), and some incarcerated individuals (who were completely unaware that the pill was even in development when they committed their special crime) *want* or even *intend* to take it...suppose they *do* take it. Suppose this means they are 100% safe to society...we know for a fact that they will never do anything illegal ever again. Would we (as individuals, as yourself, now, with your current-day sensibilities) be ok with letting such a person out of jail? Or would we feel the need (for our own sense of justice, for the sense of justice of the victims of their crime, for the sense of justice of society in general, or just out of mean-spirited desire to see someone who has caused suffering enduring suffering themselves) for that person to serve out their prison term...or most of it...or at least more of it?

I ask because (and I'm tipping my hand here to the point where I can no longer expect to get anything like straight answers from people, but the thread is so botched I no longer care...I'd rather set my intentions straight) I suspect that we *want* to value/prefer the concept that if a person is rehabilitated, then there's no reason to punish them...but that *deep down* we do in fact have a nasty urge to see vengeance enacted...not just because we think the victims (or their families) would want to see this...but because *we* want to see it, to know it's being carried out.

It is possible that all of the misunderstandings of this point, and all the diversions onto tangential topics of free will, implementation, longterm consequences, what *society* would want, rather than what *they* think, etc. are just artifacts of how badly I posed the question initially, how often I had to change the scenario so that factors irrelevant to my underlying question would not interfere with getting an answer, or how complex the question itself is. I can accept that. But it is also *quite* possible that those misunderstandings are primarily manifestations of peoples' deep-seated need not to grapple with the question...because they don't want to ask themselves about their own base-level need for vengeance. Easier to poke holes in the question than to face our own demons.

Doesn't really matter...it's been an interesting discussion and experiment. Thanks all.

[elian]

I do find it interesting that people object so to voluntary usage of the pill on grounds of free will: basically, you want to restrict their free will to take a pill that would impair their free will. Seems like circular/hypocritical reasoning to me.

I feel that I am encouraging the use of free will by objecting to making the pill mandatory. You never really said that the powers-that-be would make the pill mandatory but there is a historical precedent for such things to happen. Biggerism is rampant in the US. "One viagra is good, so four of them must be even better"

Others have suggested that treating the root problem is better than treating a symptom and I am inclined to agree. In the best world we would put in the effort to do it the right way. Perhaps it is hard to imagine that because people who do social work in our country are valued so little, while celebrities are put on a pedestal no matter how many mistakes they make in life.

I could ramble on endlessly about it but real people make a difference, little by little. Some people think that simply living their life doesn't make a difference. Some people don't want to wait for the trickle to turn into a flood but sooner or later it will happen. Despite what the media tells us I think that most people know in their heart that they want the world to be a better place.

[Annika L]

I feel that I am encouraging the use of free will by objecting to making the pill mandatory. You never really said that the powers-that-be would make the pill mandatory but there is a historical precedent for such things to happen. Biggerism is rampant in the US. "One viagra is good, so four of them must be even better"

Others have suggested that treating the root problem is better than treating a symptom and I am inclined to agree. In the best world we would put in the effort to do it the right way. Perhaps it is hard to imagine that because people who do social work in our country are valued so little, while celebrities are put on a pedestal no matter how many mistakes they make in life.

I could ramble on endlessly about it but real people make a difference, little by little. Some people think that simply living their life doesn't make a difference. Some people don't want to wait for the trickle to turn into a flood but sooner or later it will happen. Despite what the media tells us I think that most people know in their heart that they want the world to be a better place.

Yes...in fact, not only did I *not* say the pill was mandatory, but I have repeatedly said it is only ever taken voluntarily (after one silly stumble at the beginning). And once more (maybe even for the last time?) the question is not whether pursuing this pill is a good idea, or whether the pill ought to be released, or would this pill solve all our problems (the answer to all three of those questions would be a resounding NO). So you may object to it all you like, but that continues to be a dodge of my question...which is "if a person who was imprisoned before the pill was released *takes* this pill and becomes 100% safe to society, would you let him out of jail?" See my previous post (#71) for a more full explanation of these thoughts.

[elian]

Would I? If those were the only conditions, yes. ..I do a lot of things in my life without knowing the full consequences are repercussions. So I would immediately say, what good is it having them sit in jail when they could be free and no danger to society. However, this pill really doesn't solve the problem of people ending up in jail in the first place - and it may nott solve the problem of other human beings feeling violated that someone who murdered their family is now going to walk free.

We used to think that people with depression were just "lazy" , now we recognize it as a mental illness.. I was going to draw a parallel between that and being in jail but that is a fallacy too. If someone steals a loaf of bread because they are starving, it is because they are trying to survive, not because they are mentally ill. To fix the root cause of all of these symptoms takes a lot more work than we are willing to put into the process.

Are WE going to care for other people, using altruism instead of ego - sort of the way that "God" does? That would mean that we would have to admit that there IS enough for everyone, that we CAN be good enough and would HAVE to take responsibility for our actions ..

Instead of saying, "too bad for them - they must've done something wrong, thank God I am blessed. Thank God it's them and not me (fear)"

If every person could know abundance and happiness in their HEART, there would be no animosity. I guess a person can dream...

[darkeyes]

Bearing in mind me own views and doubts on the little pill issue.. yes Annika, I would release them... it would be counter-productive not to, just as it would be counter-productive not to release people who were considered rehabilitated under me own vision of crime and "punishment".. there comes a time when continued custody serves no purpose except to impose a vengeful sentence on another human being in both scenarios... to offer the pill and then not offer freedom, the pill becomes a sedative for prison control only.. so what would be the point of agreeing to taking the little pill? To offer rehabilitation and then deny freedom once rehabilitated is to risk eventual failure in the rehabilitation for much the same reason... no little pill is 100% safe or reliable and so I have no doubt there will be regressions and hitches which will cause many people to create and demand they all be re-nicked and sent back to clink... whether or not they have been models of good citizenry when out of gaol.. just as there will be failures in rehabilitation which will bring the same demands..

I am not a vengeful person, and neither do I enjoy living in a vengeful society or world. Many of us are not vengeful, but sadly most are. Not all can forgive and many are unable to forgive even the smallest slight against person or society, often because that is how they genuinely feel, but also because it suits as a method of control. Many such people are supposedly believers in religions which have a basic tenet of forgiveness within their doctrines. I still have my doubts about ur little pill, but my doubts about the sanity, compassion and sense of justice of our societies are even greater. Personally, I think it is society which needs a little "pill".. but not one such as u suggest...

[Gearbox]

It may have been better to start off with "Every prisoner has been deemed SAFE to enter society with a 100% guarantee of not reoffending. That is true! You believe it! Do you want them to be released?"? You might have got some straight answers Annika dearest.LOL

[12voltman59]

From having worked in this field in one way or the other for well over a decade---for the vast majority of people---it is pretty simple---they want "the system" to extract a degree of vengeance and to be about punishment.

There are lots of reasons for that----for most of those who have been victims of crime or had a loved one who was a victim who was seriously hurt or killed---it really is about getting "their pound of flesh" for all the pain that was caused by the crimes they or their loved one suffered and that is a normal and understandable thing---and since in so many ways---we do allow a religious factor to influence public policy---many subscribe to the "eye for an eye" sort of view.

It is for this reason, that politicians---both Democrat and Republican, liberal or conservative---for years jumped on the bandwagon of "being hard on crime" by enacting legislation like "three strikes and you are out" like they did out in California----where a person can get life in prison (or close to it) for committing their third felony offense--and it didn't matter what any of those crimes were, just as long as they were all felony offenses--commit the third one---and you stand a strong chance of spending most of the rest of your life in prison.

Now--with all the budget shortfalls and all---we are finally starting to back away from things like this since its so damned expensive to simply lock people up.

At one time--we had a period were there was a view that we wanted to try to reform and rehabilitate those who committed crime----but today---that is considered a quaint notion and we want to basically "lock the bastards up and throw away the key."

Then, we also have an issue of the growth of the private prison companies---with many more states looking at turning over their prison systems to those private operators and when you have a monetary interest to get as many bodies in cells as possible and keep them there----then it really doesn't matter if we care about either rehabilitation or revenge----the motive becomes to fill beds with inmates so big profits can be made. There are a number of cases on record where judges in places with private jail/prison operators are located that the judges were getting big time kickbacks for each and every person they sentenced to a sentence in those institutions--the worst case---I forgot where it was--was this one county in some state had turned over their juvenile criminal justice center to a private operator---and one female juvenile court judge sentenced nearly every single kid who came through her court to at least the minimal allowable jail sentence-----even if the kid was a first time offender and the case was something like literally stealing a pack of gum---because she was found to have received something like a half a million from the private company---needless to say---she did get found out and wound up getting booted from her position and even faced criminal charges herself. That county then also cancelled the contract with the private operator, having to take over the juvenile detention center again and all of that cost the local taxpayers all kinds of big bucks--so any supposed savings that were supposed to come from turning over the system to a private operator was a bunch of crap!!!

Personally---even though its a not cheap to go the way of trying to rehab criminals----it really seems to be the smartest way to go---at least for those "criminals" who are not the hardcore types--the great mass of criminals might be "recidivists" in that they continually go and get new minor charges getting charges like panhandling, public intoxication and others of this sort---but most of them are not hardcore bad guys that go and kill people and such-with the real hardcore types----there realistically is a much smaller chance they are "recoverable" and those kinds need to be kept locked up---it if for those sorts that we need to reserve prison space for---and not for some mom who never had so much as a traffic ticket--gets talked into a boyfriend to deliver some pot to someone then gets busted, tried and sentenced to 30 years in prison just because she just happened to have enough pot that got her labeled "a major dealer" and the real big time dealer who supplied the stuff basically takes a walk because he gave up his low level dealers to the prosecutors.

I really don't know what the answers are to the way things are--one thing I can tell everyone---"the system" is pretty well fucked up!!

One more thing about turning over state prison systems to private contractors----in most cases those prison operators only want to take over or build minimum or medium level classification prisons----because they don't want to have to deal with hardcore prisoners like gangbangers and in one case now playing out----I just read about this not too long ago----in one place where the operator does run some high classification prisons--their guards are ready to quit because of the low level of staffing and that the management of the prison basically reached an agreement with the gang lords to let them run the place---and the number of assaults on both inmates and correctional officers is out of control.

Let's face it----when it comes to actually doing all one can to keep the hardcore criminal element in some degree of control in a prison is a very expensive operation----an expense that for a private operator means less profit. Sure---the prisons run by the states don't actually have total control over their high classification prisons---but they mostly do because they do things like send in CERT teams to do shakedowns looking for weapons, drugs, illegal cell phones and what have you---do you really think that private companies like CCA (Correctional Corporation of America) are really gonna spend what it takes to make sure that they have some degree of control over the inmates??

I don't think so!

In those few states (thankfully) that did allow a total take over of their prison systems by operators like CCA---they are either going back to either boot those companies entirely----or now just having them operate things like transitional centers where the companies only "manage" low level classification inmates.

[void()]

Yes...in fact, not only did I *not* say the pill was mandatory, but I have repeatedly said it is only ever taken voluntarily (after one silly stumble at the beginning). And once more (maybe even for the last time?) the question is not whether pursuing this pill is a good idea, or whether the pill ought to be released, or would this pill solve all our problems (the answer to all three of those questions would be a resounding NO). So you may object to it all you like, but that continues to be a dodge of my question...which is "if a person who was imprisoned before the pill was released *takes* this pill and becomes 100% safe to society, would you let him out of jail?" See my previous post (#71) for a more full explanation of these thoughts.

Okay, so as to not dodge the question ...
if a person were guaranteed fit and safe to return to society, then so mote it be. There would
be no point to prolong them sitting in jail.

[bi.kenner50]

I'm a U.S. citizen by birth. In light of the extreme injustice in our society vengeance is totally immoral. How can we justify vengeance when our society (especially inner city pubic schools) fast track individuals ti prison from the moment of birth? In our inner cities the idea of free will is an obscene joke. The for profit prison industry creates such a glaring conflict of interest it is likewise morally repulsive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9knn1uUM7E4#t=42 http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/world.htm#west Perhaps we have this decedent excuse for justice because so many of our citizens get their moral code from an ancient immoral book that prescribes the death penalty people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath and the most morally repulsive punishment ever conceived, ETERNAL TORTURE!

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

I'm probably going to start a "Shit-storm" and thats not my intent. My intent is to add my humble 2 cent. I believe in the death pentality to those who have killed innocents (And I'm not talking our Military persons). I'm meaning those who take lives in cold blood. Those who maim and premeditate. For instance: The little Bastard who killed and crippled all of those innocent people in Boston, or the soldier at Ft Hood. Or anyone who kills for kick like the boys that beat that old Veteran to death just to see what it Felt like....
Those arent people any more, those arent even good enough to be classified as Animals. Those are dregs of society that dont deserve to live. They didnt show any mercy on their vicitims and dont deserve a second chance. They killed and injured On Purpose, that was their Goal..why should society show Them any mercy by letting them live out the rest of their lives in prison, when their victims struggle to cope, struggle to regain their lives and yes...sanity as well. Why should they be allowed to live, get free education from the state they are in, when their victims must learn to use a prostetic, undergo countless surgeries to correct the damage from their hate, and endure years of therapy to rid themselves of the terror done to their minds? All because someone decided it was a good day to ruin the world, or destroy lives...
The Deserve the death penalty. They Chose to kill and do harm to fellow human beings. And if those people had been dealt with swiftly and immediately, there wouldnt Be as much of this BS as there is in the world. None of this waiting around for months, perhaps Years to decide if he/she did something wrong or not. Deal With It. Show criminals and terrorists that American wont tolerate this BS any longer. Wont coddle those who take lives without an after thought, Deal With It.
Just my humble opinion.
Cat

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

I know this is ragged, guys and gals. I should Know better than to write while fighting a migraine...Forgive the typos and the grammarical spacing...
Cat

[Annika L]

I'm probably going to start a "Shit-storm" and thats not my intent. My intent is to add my humble 2 cent. I believe in the death pentality to those who have killed innocents (And I'm not talking our Military persons). I'm meaning those who take lives in cold blood. Those who maim and premeditate. For instance: The little Bastard who killed and crippled all of those innocent people in Boston, or the soldier at Ft Hood. Or anyone who kills for kick like the boys that beat that old Veteran to death just to see what it Felt like....
Those arent people any more, those arent even good enough to be classified as Animals. Those are dregs of society that dont deserve to live. They didnt show any mercy on their vicitims and dont deserve a second chance. They killed and injured On Purpose, that was their Goal..why should society show Them any mercy by letting them live out the rest of their lives in prison, when their victims struggle to cope, struggle to regain their lives and yes...sanity as well. Why should they be allowed to live, get free education from the state they are in, when their victims must learn to use a prostetic, undergo countless surgeries to correct the damage from their hate, and endure years of therapy to rid themselves of the terror done to their minds? All because someone decided it was a good day to ruin the world, or destroy lives...
The Deserve the death penalty. They Chose to kill and do harm to fellow human beings. And if those people had been dealt with swiftly and immediately, there wouldnt Be as much of this BS as there is in the world. None of this waiting around for months, perhaps Years to decide if he/she did something wrong or not. Deal With It. Show criminals and terrorists that American wont tolerate this BS any longer. Wont coddle those who take lives without an after thought, Deal With It.
Just my humble opinion.
Cat

So basically, revenge. Yes?

It certainly sounds like even if you *knew for a fact* they would never be a danger to society ever again, could even be productive citizens, you would still support killing them.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

No Honey. It would assure that no innocent victims would ever die or be maimed at their hands ever again. Its not revenge. Its like taking out a diseased animal that had been killing baby animals for the fun of it. It has no thoughts except to hurt or kill and shouldnt be allowed to do so ever again...or it will Keep on killing and maiming. Let me put the boot on the other foot: If you were the mother of one of those children hurt or killed in either the attack on Boston, (or in any other scenerio like that) would you want that person to live in prison for the rest of their lives? Knowing full well that they hurt your child, husband, wife, simply because they Could--and because they knew they'd get away with it? Some might be that forgiving. I'm not, Babygirl. Maybe that makes me a "Savage" I dunno.

This is a hot topic; and many are going to disagree, but that's just human nature. I have my ways of thinking and everyone is varied and different. All I know is, for my personal prospective. If someone killed or hurt one of my Children or Grandchildren, I'd be the first in line to "Throw the switch"...
Hugz
Cat

[Annika L]

No Honey. It would assure that no innocent victims would ever die or be maimed at their hands ever again. Its not revenge. Its like taking out a diseased animal that had been killing baby animals for the fun of it. It has no thoughts except to hurt or kill and shouldnt be allowed to do so ever again...or it will Keep on killing and maiming. Let me put the boot on the other foot: If you were the mother of one of those children hurt or killed in either the attack on Boston, (or in any other scenerio like that) would you want that person to live in prison for the rest of their lives? Knowing full well that they hurt your child, husband, wife, simply because they Could--and because they knew they'd get away with it? Some might be that forgiving. I'm not, Babygirl. Maybe that makes me a "Savage" I dunno.

This is a hot topic; and many are going to disagree, but that's just human nature. I have my ways of thinking and everyone is varied and different. All I know is, for my personal prospective. If someone killed or hurt one of my Children or Grandchildren, I'd be the first in line to "Throw the switch"...
Hugz
Cat
I love diversity of opinion. I am uncomfortable with inconsistent viewpoints. So let me make sure we both understand what's being said here. First...did you read my OP, and the rest of the discussion of what I was trying to get at? I put forth a scenario where society could be assured that a criminal would never commit another crime ever again *without* imprisoning them and *without* killing them. Your answer to this seems to say "no, just kill them." Whether they take the drug or are killed, society is safe from them. So I have a hard time seeing the insistence on killing as anything but revenge. Help me out here? The animal is no longer deranged...why kill it? It feels to me that you are deluding yourself about your viewpoint...you favor revenge, but don't like the idea of favoring revenge.

Your question to me...how would *I* feel if *my* child was murdered? ...would seem to make it crystal clear. I would be feeling extremely angry and vulnerable...and absofuckinglutely vengeful! But our criminal justice system exists exactly so that the emotions of the aggrieved do not determine the fate of the condemned. In the world I'd like to live in, the criminal justice system exists to protect society, not to exact vengeance on perpetrators. So I don't believe that my feelings under that circumstance should be considered in determining the punishment of the individual.

I also think the comparison of criminals to thoughtless beasts lacks imagination and compassion. There are all kinds of reasons why people kill or commit other crimes. Walk a mile in a person's shoes before pronouncing your judgments. Of course, I'm certain there are people who *are* like thoughtless beasts who kill for pleasure...and maybe short of this fantasy drug I'm hypothesizing, the only way to deal with such people is to kill or permanently incarcerate them. I still question whether it's best to kill them...or whether we have that right, except in that we have the ability, and lack the imagination to come up with a better alternative.

[darkeyes]

..... I still question whether it's best to kill them...or whether we have that right, except in that we have the ability, and lack the imagination to come up with a better alternative.
Two thirds of the nations of this world have abolished capital punishment.. they have alternatives, arguably better... in my personal view, better.. period.. most have homicide rates less than that of the United States.. and most have far smaller prison populations and in general lesser serious crime rates.. of course, no two nations can be compared precisely for what is criminal in one country is often not in another and different social environments exist in each.. it is not imagination that is lacked in the US.. what is lacking is courage to think outside the box, learn from elsewhere, cease being vengeful, attempt forgiveness and proper rehabilitation and try something different:)..

[elian]

It would seem after a few hundred years people are starting to question the wisdom of locking folks up for minor offenses, at least there is more public debate about it now than in the past anyway.