Was This Taken to Far?

[EquALLity]

If I had the power to do anything, violent criminals would be released into the middle of a jungle, where they can live among the animals they are behaving like.

Maybe if you ask Australia really nicely they'll become penal colonies again and your dream will come true!

If I really had the power to do anything, violence wouldn't be an issue in the first place. I wonder if I am taking such a hard stance on this because of experience?

Anybody ever been the victim of violence? Not just "some guy pushed me once", but "is today the day I die?" type violence?

Thanks Cirion.

I haven't dealt with violence in the way that you're describing, but I don't think that really matters.
You can't use personal experiences to justify immoral acts.

Do you really see nothing immoral about stranding people in the middle of a jungle to suffer and die?

[PsYcHo]

So, you DO believe in revenge?
If you had the power to do anything, you would not criminalize that form of violent retribution?

Also, to clarify, which way did you vote?

Aren't all types of punishment revenge? Placing a criminal in jail is society's revenge for breaking the law. Putting a child in time-out is revenge for not following the parents' rules.

I retract this question due mainly to a conversation I had with a waitress today, and partly due to Cirion's response. I asked her out of the blue, are revenge and punishment the same thing. She thought about if for a moment, then replied "Revenge is based on hate, punishment can be administered out of love." .......

Seems sometimes I try to complicate the simple, while at the same time simplifying the complicated. I HATE violent people. By nature, I do not believe I am a violent person, yet I have used violence in the past, and do not rule it out in my future. This is why I said what the father did was wrong, but I honestly cannot say I would not do the same. My particular brand of violence was learned as a coping mechanism. I was a victim not once, but many, many times, and I find it almost impossible to feel any compassion towards a violent person, despite the fact that I myself am capable of violence. If you've never cowered under a bed, only to be pulled out and beaten yet again, I can understand how seething hatred for violent people isn't something you completely understand. I hope it is something you never understand fully. It takes a part of you away. and even though you know you are missing a piece of yourself, it remains just out of your reach.

Yes, the father did wrong, BUT THE BASTARD DESERVED IT! If you want to feel bad for the violent rapist who got hurt, that's your prerogative. I don't, and I never will. I used up all my sympathy for the girl and her family, and have none left.

[PsYcHo]

I haven't dealt with violence in the way that you're describing, but I don't think that really matters.
You can't use personal experiences to justify immoral acts.

Do you really see nothing immoral about stranding people in the middle of a jungle to suffer and die?

It matters to the victims.

And yes, it is immoral. But less so.

[EquALLity]

I haven't dealt with violence in the way that you're describing, but I don't think that really matters.
You can't use personal experiences to justify immoral acts.

Do you really see nothing immoral about stranding people in the middle of a jungle to suffer and die?

It matters to the victims.

And yes, it is immoral. But less so.

If it's immoral, how do you justify it? And why is it less immoral?

I'm sorry about what happened to you, that sounds crazy. But that doesn't make wanting more violence ok.
I totally understand how you feel about it (hating violent people), but you lose me when you try to use those feelings to cause harm in the real world (or to support harm).

[PsYcHo]

What do you think about these parts of my response?

Yeah, good points. Violence begets violence.

I think there may be a correlation between violent punishments and violent societies, but not sure if that's a causation.

I think that state violence does a few things to promote violence in general:

1) It desensitizes people. Seeing violence constantly like that diminishes the severity of it, and people just get used to it, and thereby are more comfortable administering it.
2) Tied in with that^, because people get used to violence being a way to solve problems, they may be inclined to go to war.
3) And tied in with that^, people are also more likely to use violence in general. One example in practice is Saudi Arabia (and similar countries), where there are things like public executions. There's also a lot of domestic violence (towards wives and children). And why wouldn't there be? People are being taught that undesired behavior should be punished with violence by the ultimate authority, government. Of course that'll translate into home life.

What do you think?

I agree 100%, which is why I say as a society we can't condone it. Obviously not everyone is as peaceful as you,(This is not an insult, I truly wish everyone thought like this.), because if they were people like me wouldn't exist.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think there may be a correlation between violent punishments and violent societies, but not sure if that's a causation.

I would believe there is a correlation due to Europe and Africa (although I'd rather see statistics on this and a thorough analysis). I agree that this doesn't mean there's a causative link. It's probably that violent cultures are more likely to support violent laws, not that violent laws make people violent.

The idea that violent laws would make people violent mirrors the idea that violent video games make people violent: it's something that has not been shown to be a real effect by actual studies.

Aren't all types of punishment revenge? Placing a criminal in jail is society's revenge for breaking the law. Putting a child in time-out is revenge for not following the parents' rules.

Punishments shouldn't be exacted for revenge, since the emotion clouds judgement. When you put a child in time out, it is to teach the child, not because you want him or her to suffer. It could also be to discourage other children from doing the same thing. Revenge is about "justice", we need to be more concerned about consequences.

Revenge mentality just escalates matters.

You step on my toe, you think it was an accident, I think it was on purpose.
I stomp on your foot as revenge (there's no way to calibrate a precisely equal measure, so ANY measure will inevitably be seen as excessive by some since it's subjective)
You see that as both wrong, and excessive. You stomp on my foot harder.
I stomp on your foot harder still by jumping.
Maybe you weigh less than I do, so you drop a rock on my foot.
I drop a much larger rock on yours.
You drop a boulder on me and kill me. Well, things like that happen, you only meant to crush my foot.
My brother kills your brother as revenge.
Then you kill my brother and my father kills you.
Your father kills my father, my uncle kills him.
Etc.

But here is the thing, I know what I did was morally wrong, yet I feel no remorse.

I think you got a little lucky it didn't escalate. Perhaps he knew he deserved it. You also got lucky that he actually did it and it wasn't a misunderstanding, or you didn't beat the wrong guy by mistake. You got lucky, too, that you didn't kill him (you could have, if he had hit his head, or gotten a bleed in his brain from a strike -- a single punch can, with bad luck, kill a grown man).

Take into perspective the possibility and probability of greater harm. I think you may have lost sight of that.

Like a drunk driver who got lucky and didn't kill somebody.
The drunk driver who ran over a child by accident and the drunk driver who made it home safely are equally guilty -- one was just luckier than the other.

Why is only the drunk who killed somebody remorseful, but the one who makes it home safely never thinks twice about his actions? Never thinks about the child he could have killed by his reckless behavior?

Knocking out a couple teeth of a rapist: not a big issue in the grand scheme of things. Like knocking over a mailbox maybe. But what could have happened and didn't? What if those teeth were an aneurysm? What if the mailbox was a child? What if the rapists' brother killed a family member of yours out of revenge? What if, in a rage in the scuffle you got confused, missed and hit (and killed) the wrong person?

Take some time to meditate on that, and you'll realize what did happen is you got lucky. Not extremely lucky, but the chances of something terrible happening were high enough that this is why such behavior is illegal. Think about what could have happened, and ponder how you would be any more guilty if any of those things transpired by dumb bad luck.

It's not as simple as "well then you don't think it was wrong", more of "I know it was wrong. I did it anyway. I shouldn't have done that." How would you define my morality in a case such as that? (I'm not sure if I would react the same way now, but I can't 100% say I wouldn't either.)

I think you connect with it intellectually, but you need to connect with it emotionally to feel remorseful for the choice of action.

[PsYcHo]

I'm sorry about what happened to you, that sounds crazy. But that doesn't make wanting more violence ok.
I totally understand how you feel about it (hating violent people), but you lose me when you try to use those feelings to cause harm in the real world (or to support harm).

This particular issue has definitely caused a lot of internal conflict in me. How much punishment is enough? In the Stanford case, you (and I) say that it was not enough punishment. In the father case, I say it was enough, and you say it was too much. As a society I agree we shouldn't condone violence, because it breeds more violence. But how should we deal with people who choose to be violent in the first place? People speak of solitary confinement in prison as the worst scenario, but give me a book and free time and it is an ideal place for me, so there would really be no punishment.

How do you think a.- the rapist should have been punished; b- the father should be punished?

[EquALLity]

I'm sorry about what happened to you, that sounds crazy. But that doesn't make wanting more violence ok.
I totally understand how you feel about it (hating violent people), but you lose me when you try to use those feelings to cause harm in the real world (or to support harm).

This particular issue has definitely caused a lot of internal conflict in me. How much punishment is enough? In the Stanford case, you (and I) say that it was not enough punishment. In the father case, I say it was enough, and you say it was too much. As a society I agree we shouldn't condone violence, because it breeds more violence. But how should we deal with people who choose to be violent in the first place? People speak of solitary confinement in prison as the worst scenario, but give me a book and free time and it is an ideal place for me, so there would really be no punishment.

How do you think a.- the rapist should have been punished; b- the father should be punished?

Solitary confinement is psychological torture.
You might think that it'd be peaceful at first, but after long enough it'll catch up with you.

I think that we should focus on rehabilitating violent criminals, because that works, and it's also most ethical towards the prisoners.
But I also think there should be a punitive element as well, not for revenge, but for deterrence. I don't think it should involve violence, because that encourages more violence and isn't compassionate towards the prisoners.

A) I think Brock Turner should've been sentenced longer. I obviously can't put a number on the exact right sentence, but I don't think that six months is a good deterrence for such a horrible crime. I also think he should be rehabilitated, and I think it should be the primary element of his sentence (for reasons I explained above).

B) How the father should be punished is a really difficult question. I don't think he should get a prison sentence as long as most violent criminals given the circumstances, but he should definitely be punished to an extent, and also rehabilitated (again as the focus).

[PsYcHo]

Revenge mentality just escalates matters.

You step on my toe, you think it was an accident, I think it was on purpose.
I stomp on your foot as revenge (there's no way to calibrate a precisely equal measure, so ANY measure will inevitably be seen as excessive by some since it's subjective)

The only reason my revenge was exacted was because the person in question admitted it. I believe we have spoke on my thoughts about leaning toward innocence unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But I agree with your premise.

Take some time to meditate on that, and you'll realize what did happen is you got lucky. Not extremely lucky, but the chances of something terrible happening were high enough that this is why such behavior is illegal. Think about what could have happened, and ponder how you would be any more guilty if any of those things transpired by dumb bad luck.

When I am rational, (99%) of the time, I agree and think these things through. I have wanted to use violence against people for other slights (thefts, or insults, etc.), but never have because it is wrong and there is a chance that something unforeseen could happen. (I punch a guy for stealing my t.v., he shoots up my house.) But is seems when it comes to violent people, I "see red" and don't consider the consequences. (Just like them, I suppose..)

I think you connect with it intellectually, but you need to connect with it emotionally to feel remorseful for the choice of action.

The intellectual reason is the only reason I even come close to feeling bad about it. When I think about it emotionally, the guy is luck he only lost a couple of teeth. I don't find most of the "funny" videos of people getting hurt (AFV types) humorous. Pain is not funny to me. But someone who hurt someone else? Oh the wicked things that go through my mind....

But as a society I understand everyone shouldn't act this way. Even if I accidentally killed the rapist I assaulted, I would not feel bad, and would accept the punishment society prescribed for me. And I appreciate the irony of "what if his family member killed you"...

It's a fucked up cycle, and I don't advocate my way of thinking. Hell, I wish I didn't have my way of thinking. Then EquALLity and I could argue over whether Starbucks or Panera Bread makes the best soy latte.

[PsYcHo]

Solitary confinement is psychological torture.
You might think that it'd be peaceful at first, but after long enough it'll catch up with you.

I spent a year alone away from people. For people like me, it would not deter me from anything. Perhaps it would for others, though.

I think that we should focus on rehabilitating violent criminals, because that works, and it's also most ethical towards the prisoners.
But I also think there should be a punitive element as well, not for revenge, but for deterrence. I don't think it should involve violence, because that encourages more violence and isn't compassionate towards the prisoners.

But what constitutes punishment? Taking away someone's freedom to be in society doesn't have much of a deterrent effect if they are allowed to socialize, attend classes, make their own meals, have conjugal visits, watch tv, read books. Its more like a summer camp for violent people. To your credit, places like Sweden have a much lower recidivism rate, but they also have a different societal makeup than the US.

A) I think Brock Turner should've been sentenced longer. I obviously can't put a number on the exact right sentence, but I don't think that six months is a good deterrence for such a horrible crime. I also think he should be rehabilitated, and I think it should be the primary element of his sentence (for reasons I explained above).

B) How the father should be punished is a really difficult question. I don't think he should get a prison sentence as long as most violent criminals given the circumstances, but he should definitely be punished to an extent, and also rehabilitated (again as the focus).

A) Interesting thought, is keeping Brock in prison more of a punishment for him, or a reprieve for society while he is incarcerated?
B) Why would the father need rehabilitation? His crime was a reaction to a very specific action, one that is unlikely to be repeated.