Nebraska bans death penalty

[Thanas]

Why would one need to take away perks? Wouldn't it be far better to make it as less stressful for everyone, so that the people there can actually use the reintegration opportunities?

[Simon_Jester]

It would be desirable to have some things that can be removed.

It is in human nature to break rules and it is in human nature to ignore rules that don't come with consequences for breaking them. In a prison, while there may not be a need to 'punish' the prisoners, there is a need to control the prisoners. And since they are, empirically, people who tend to break important rules when they're not being closely supervised, that means closer observation and more detailed rules governing their conduct... complete with consequences and penalties for ignoring those rules.

So while we should not make the prisoner's life miserable or insanity-inducing as 'punishment' for disobedience, there has to be something that can be taken away, some way in which we create an incentive to NOT break the rules.

Conversely, there has to be something that can be given- something everyone can have, but not everyone does have. Because some people come closer to fitting the mold the prison seeks to impose upon them, and some are trying harder to do so, and you have to have a way to reward them if you don't want them to give up outright.

And this remains just as true in a prison which seeks to rehabilitate, because you're still trying to 'modify' the criminal into a non-criminal.

[Thanas]

It would be desirable to have some things that can be removed.

It is in human nature to break rules and it is in human nature to ignore rules that don't come with consequences for breaking them. In a prison, while there may not be a need to 'punish' the prisoners, there is a need to control the prisoners. And since they are, empirically, people who tend to break important rules when they're not being closely supervised, that means closer observation and more detailed rules governing their conduct... complete with consequences and penalties for ignoring those rules.

So while we should not make the prisoner's life miserable or insanity-inducing as 'punishment' for disobedience, there has to be something that can be taken away, some way in which we create an incentive to NOT break the rules.

Conversely, there has to be something that can be given- something everyone can have, but not everyone does have. Because some people come closer to fitting the mold the prison seeks to impose upon them, and some are trying harder to do so, and you have to have a way to reward them if you don't want them to give up outright.

And this remains just as true in a prison which seeks to rehabilitate, because you're still trying to 'modify' the criminal into a non-criminal.

Why do you strawman my suggestion into "prison should be completely the same as outside"?

[Simon_Jester]

Uh, I didn't. I explained that I think there have to be revokable privileges in a prison that not everyone gets to keep. I explained that I think there have to be grantable privileges in a prison that not everyone had.

I explained, perhaps at unnecessary length, why I believe the above two things.

Nowhere in there did I claim anything about what you thought.

[salm]

And American prisons aren't filled up with people because we Americans are violent brutish brutes, because immigrants, or because our jails are just so cushy. There is of course difference between Scandinavia is our economy. The Scandies are in a relatively well of country with a healthy social safety net. Amerikkkans not so much atleast in the areas of violent crime. So upscale area of the country with people born with gold spoons up their taints, good education, plenty of money and jobs, and no one doing without will be just as non-violent and civilized as our amazingly amazing civilized Eurocommie betters.

Some inner city shithole awash in cocaine or some rural shithole inundated with meth will not be the same. There is not help, no education, no money, no nothing but desperate people trying to survive by any way possible. They have to be violent and criminal to survive, that is the life they are taught to live and the only one they can do. They are living the life of a 3rd worlder with all the crimes and shittyness that comes with it.

The prisons they go to reflect this. They don't go to some cushy country club with bars on the windows where they get degrees in between tennis and tea time like rich people and Eurocunts have, they go to run down, over crowded, hellish places that don't reform but make people worse because they aren't treated like people.

There are so fucking many reasons prisons in the US suck, just saying "lol Americans suck" or "its the damn dirty immigrants with their skateboarding shoes and pimped out rice mobiles" or whatever dumb reasons people give is just stupid as a many Euros think Americans are. Though to be fair to them we did invent that Duggar and Honey Boo show so I can see where they think we so dumb.

The reason why Americans are more violent doesn´t matter for the question IF they are more violent. It´s a matter of that fact that Americans are more violent which can be seen in crime statistics. This doesn´t mean that individual Americans are worse people. This means that you have to deal with a differenct type of society which will probably influnence the optimal way to handle your prisoners.
For the record, I am American myself and tend to be rather non violent.
However, if you have examples in other countries that are rather successfull with their prison systems I can not for the life of it understand why people would not want to give it a try. It just seems so counterproductive.

[Thanas]

Do you hold double citizenship? Cause I swear I distinctly remember you being in Germany.

[salm]

Do you hold double citizenship? Cause I swear I distinctly remember you being in Germany.

Yes. Having one German and one foreign parent makes it possible to keep the foreign nationality longer than the usual limit of 18 (or was it 21?) years of age.

[cmdrjones]

And American prisons aren't filled up with people because we Americans are violent brutish brutes, because immigrants, or because our jails are just so cushy. There is of course difference between Scandinavia is our economy. The Scandies are in a relatively well of country with a healthy social safety net. Amerikkkans not so much atleast in the areas of violent crime. So upscale area of the country with people born with gold spoons up their taints, good education, plenty of money and jobs, and no one doing without will be just as non-violent and civilized as our amazingly amazing civilized Eurocommie betters.

Some inner city shithole awash in cocaine or some rural shithole inundated with meth will not be the same. There is not help, no education, no money, no nothing but desperate people trying to survive by any way possible. They have to be violent and criminal to survive, that is the life they are taught to live and the only one they can do. They are living the life of a 3rd worlder with all the crimes and shittyness that comes with it.

The prisons they go to reflect this. They don't go to some cushy country club with bars on the windows where they get degrees in between tennis and tea time like rich people and Eurocunts have, they go to run down, over crowded, hellish places that don't reform but make people worse because they aren't treated like people.

There are so fucking many reasons prisons in the US suck, just saying "lol Americans suck" or "its the damn dirty immigrants with their skateboarding shoes and pimped out rice mobiles" or whatever dumb reasons people give is just stupid as a many Euros think Americans are. Though to be fair to them we did invent that Duggar and Honey Boo show so I can see where they think we so dumb.

The reason why Americans are more violent doesn´t matter for the question IF they are more violent. It´s a matter of that fact that Americans are more violent which can be seen in crime statistics. This doesn´t mean that individual Americans are worse people. This means that you have to deal with a differenct type of society which will probably influnence the optimal way to handle your prisoners.
For the record, I am American myself and tend to be rather non violent.
However, if you have examples in other countries that are rather successfull with their prison systems I can not for the life of it understand why people would not want to give it a try. It just seems so counterproductive.

Bingo.... but to answer your question: Because people are stubborn, flawed, selfish and prideful.... but we can sum that up in ONE word in English, can't we?

[SAMAS]

Human?

[cmdrjones]

Human?

Nearly synonymous with... (drumroll): sinful

[Batman]

Human?

Nearly synonymous with... (drumroll): sinful

More religion garbage from cmdrjones. How depressingly unsurprising.

[Ralin]

Human?

Nearly synonymous with... (drumroll): sinful

More religion garbage from cmdrjones. How depressingly unsurprising.

One almost wonders why you'd bother commenting on it.

[cmdrjones]

Human?

Nearly synonymous with... (drumroll): sinful

More religion garbage from cmdrjones. How depressingly unsurprising.

The Truth hurts.

[salm]

Bingo.... but to answer your question: Because people are stubborn, flawed, selfish and prideful.... but we can sum that up in ONE word in English, can't we?

Well, people in other countries don´t appear to be as "sinful" as in the US then if you insist on using religious terms. So, if the US is so much more sinful should we draw parables to Sodom and Gomorrah and hope the US gets nuked from orbit?

The term "sinful" is a useless one. It only serves to say that "everybody does it" so I´m less responsible for doing it, too, because it´s only human nature anyway.

[cmdrjones]

Bingo.... but to answer your question: Because people are stubborn, flawed, selfish and prideful.... but we can sum that up in ONE word in English, can't we?

Well, people in other countries don´t appear to be as "sinful" as in the US then if you insist on using religious terms. So, if the US is so much more sinful should we draw parables to Sodom and Gomorrah and hope the US gets nuked from orbit?

The term "sinful" is a useless one. It only serves to say that "everybody does it" so I´m less responsible for doing it, too, because it´s only human nature anyway.

A very intersting point, I would posit that sinfulness is not limited to violent criminality. Btw, your conclusion about sinfulness is precisely backwards in religious terms, it is because "everybody does it" that makes you responsible for it. That makes it universal, or in other words 'human' which is what we were talking about upthread.

[Metahive]

What does "sinfulness" matter when all "sinfulness" measures is how obedient we are towards a deity with barely any regards to actual human morality and legality? You can be a rapist and mass-murderer (like Joshua and Moses) and still be considered not having sinned as long as some god nods in agreement to it.

If someone murder-raped your loved ones and told you his god told him to (who might even be the same one you believe in) how could you possibly prove him wrong? As in how can you possibly show anyone ever has objectively committed a sin?

[salm]

A very intersting point, I would posit that sinfulness is not limited to violent criminality. Btw, your conclusion about sinfulness is precisely backwards in religious terms, it is because "everybody does it" that makes you responsible for it. That makes it universal, or in other words 'human' which is what we were talking about upthread.

If that is the way it is supposed to be then it doesn´t appear to work very well. I mean human psychology is "created" to make people think that "bad stuff" is ok as long as enough other people do it as well. See tax fraud, cheating in school and similar "petty crime" that people won´t bat an eye over if you tell them that you commit them on a regular basis.
That is not very surprising as "bad stuff" is defined by cultural norm and acceptance.

[cmdrjones]

A very intersting point, I would posit that sinfulness is not limited to violent criminality. Btw, your conclusion about sinfulness is precisely backwards in religious terms, it is because "everybody does it" that makes you responsible for it. That makes it universal, or in other words 'human' which is what we were talking about upthread.

If that is the way it is supposed to be then it doesn´t appear to work very well. I mean human psychology is "created" to make people think that "bad stuff" is ok as long as enough other people do it as well. See tax fraud, cheating in school and similar "petty crime" that people won´t bat an eye over if you tell them that you commit them on a regular basis.
That is not very surprising as "bad stuff" is defined by cultural norm and acceptance.

It really doesn't... but then again that was predictec/prophesied as well... 'The World will hate you' and all that etc etc.
I would only add that "bad stuff" from man's perspective is defined by cultural norm and acceptance.

The only reason this is germane is because if we are talking about how society upholds standards, and those standards are only defined BY men, then they, being preference, can be tossed on a whim. Sweden can 'coddle' (i.e. reform) criminals to thier hearts desire and we can 'punish' (i.e. out of sight out of mind) ours and all we can argue is which version is better for us, right now.

Put in a univseral set of right & wrong back in, and you have an additional dimension to the discussion.

I hear very often a statement along the lines of "religion X says Y, but in the real world blah blah blah blah." Which is fine, excepting that there are those who believe Y to be True, and act on it, even IN the 'real' world.

[Simon_Jester]

Cmdrjones, there is a huge difference between moral absolutism and religion.

Many religions lend themselves to casuistry and manipulation of holy writ. They do not reliably enforce absolute moral codes that actually prohibit things like cheating, killing, or stealing.

Meanwhile, many secular philosophers have constructed abstract moral systems, which do not stop working if God is out of the picture, and which tell us that we should ALL act in certain ways purely because it's the right thing to do.

So it's important to recognize that when you say "put a universal set of right and wrong back in," you are not necessarily saying "put religion back in." You could equally well be saying "put utilitarianism back in."

Bingo.... but to answer your question: Because people are stubborn, flawed, selfish and prideful.... but we can sum that up in ONE word in English, can't we?

Well, people in other countries don´t appear to be as "sinful" as in the US then if you insist on using religious terms. So, if the US is so much more sinful should we draw parables to Sodom and Gomorrah and hope the US gets nuked from orbit?

The term "sinful" is a useless one. It only serves to say that "everybody does it" so I´m less responsible for doing it, too, because it´s only human nature anyway.

I will say that 'sinful' is a convenient shorthand for 'people often act in various malevolent ways, even when there's no good obvious reason to do so.'

Christians say "virtually everyone keeps doing the wrong thing because of original sin," and you can say that's false... but on some level we're still stuck with the reality that virtually everyone keeps doing the wrong thing. "Sinful" at least has the advantage of wrapping that up in a small package.

[salm]

It really doesn't... but then again that was predictec/prophesied as well... 'The World will hate you' and all that etc etc.
I would only add that "bad stuff" from man's perspective is defined by cultural norm and acceptance.

The only reason this is germane is because if we are talking about how society upholds standards, and those standards are only defined BY men, then they, being preference, can be tossed on a whim. Sweden can 'coddle' (i.e. reform) criminals to thier hearts desire and we can 'punish' (i.e. out of sight out of mind) ours and all we can argue is which version is better for us, right now.

Put in a univseral set of right & wrong back in, and you have an additional dimension to the discussion.

I hear very often a statement along the lines of "religion X says Y, but in the real world blah blah blah blah." Which is fine, excepting that there are those who believe Y to be True, and act on it, even IN the 'real' world.

Of course they can be tossed at a whim in the sense that there is nothing making them absolute.
You can not toss them at a whim in practice because you will have to make a whole culture accept your view in order to have any significant impact. But cultural norms and rules are permanently changing and evloving, so in fact, they do get tossed very slowly.

However, I can´t see how this applies in this context which is America wants to lower their crime rate. They have so far tried it by being draconian and failed. Other nations that are less draconian are more successful with lowering their crime rate. Therefore it would make sense to try what these other nations do.

Now, if your culutural norm of punishing the evildoer is more important than lowering the crime rate then it makes sense to be a draconian asshole. Therefore I conclude that the average American is less interested in reducing crime than in punishing criminals. Seems rather brainless to me but, meh, I really don´t have to deal with it, so have fun with your crime.

[cmdrjones]

Cmdrjones, there is a huge difference between moral absolutism and religion.

Many religions lend themselves to casuistry and manipulation of holy writ. They do not reliably enforce absolute moral codes that actually prohibit things like cheating, killing, or stealing.

Meanwhile, many secular philosophers have constructed abstract moral systems, which do not stop working if God is out of the picture, and which tell us that we should ALL act in certain ways purely because it's the right thing to do.

So it's important to recognize that when you say "put a universal set of right and wrong back in," you are not necessarily saying "put religion back in." You could equally well be saying "put utilitarianism back in."

Bingo.... but to answer your question: Because people are stubborn, flawed, selfish and prideful.... but we can sum that up in ONE word in English, can't we?

Well, people in other countries don´t appear to be as "sinful" as in the US then if you insist on using religious terms. So, if the US is so much more sinful should we draw parables to Sodom and Gomorrah and hope the US gets nuked from orbit?

The term "sinful" is a useless one. It only serves to say that "everybody does it" so I´m less responsible for doing it, too, because it´s only human nature anyway.

I will say that 'sinful' is a convenient shorthand for 'people often act in various malevolent ways, even when there's no good obvious reason to do so.'

Christians say "virtually everyone keeps doing the wrong thing because of original sin," and you can say that's false... but on some level we're still stuck with the reality that virtually everyone keeps doing the wrong thing. "Sinful" at least has the advantage of wrapping that up in a small package.

All very true, except that the secular philosophical systems have nothing enforcing them, (even if just in theory) other than the adherents own moral strength if you will. To answer salms question about nuking from orbit: I leave that to the man upstairs, his perspective is very much different from ours.

[Terralthra]

All very true, except that the secular philosophical systems have nothing enforcing them, (even if just in theory) other than the adherents own moral strength if you will.

Religious "moral" systems don't have anything enforcing them other than the adherents' own fear and ability to rationalize. I fail to see how that's a significant difference.

[cmdrjones]

All very true, except that the secular philosophical systems have nothing enforcing them, (even if just in theory) other than the adherents own moral strength if you will.

Religious "moral" systems don't have anything enforcing them other than the adherents' own fear and ability to rationalize. I fail to see how that's a significant difference.

"I fail to see..."

[salm]

All very true, except that the secular philosophical systems have nothing enforcing them, (even if just in theory) other than the adherents own moral strength if you will. To answer salms question about nuking from orbit: I leave that to the man upstairs, his perspective is very much different from ours.

As a secular person I obviously don´t think that a god enforces anything and you as religious person think that your god does.

But that aside, would you say there is nothing else enforcing these systems, be they religious or secular? I´d say Cultural momentum is what enforces secular and religious philosophical systems. Stuff like laws, ettiquette and similar things.

[Simon_Jester]

All very true, except that the secular philosophical systems have nothing enforcing them, (even if just in theory) other than the adherents own moral strength if you will. To answer salms question about nuking from orbit: I leave that to the man upstairs, his perspective is very much different from ours.

By the same argument, religious law is de facto not enforced in a way anyone can detect easily.

Again, you're conflating two things. One is "we need absolute ethical laws to govern society" and the other is "we need those laws to be enforced." Enforcement is a task for police and jailers; nobody can write a law that enforces itself, unless that law is descriptive rather than prescriptive.