@Sicarius
"people would focus on how to miniize the damage from these acts"

I am dead. How will you minimise the damage to me?

@Sicarius, "to prevent violence by committing SYSTEMIC violence is silly"

Really? Why?

"I should point out that forbiding something we know humans will do (murder assault rape) is profoundly stupid."

No it isn't. It may well reduce the amount that it is done to forbid it and take action against it.

@Ghost: "@Sicarius, "to prevent violence by committing SYSTEMIC violence is silly"

Really? Why?" Two wrongs don't make a right. You shouldn't fight violence with more violence.

would it be better to tell a 2 year old over and over not to color on the wall, that they are absolutely forbidden
or make sure you have a sponge handy?

My point is we should be focused on how o minimize the damage from the acts that we KNOW people are going to do, instead of just forbiding those acts and expecting them not to happen.

@Sic
I accept that some people will commit crimes despite the existence of penalties, because of need, loss of control or low expectation of being caught. However, jail or other punishment must act as a deterent to some offenders (e.g. I don't speed past cameras) and as a means of protecting the public from repeat offenders. Would you really not bother to detain a serial murderer?

I still want to know how you will minimise the damage to me after I have been killed.

@ CM

After a man rapes your daughter, what would you like to be done to him here on Earth? If you say nothing, and then he murders your wife, what then? Why create a hell on Earth when we have the abilities to keep these people from recommiting crimes?

You misunderstand.
I'm not saying we should let killers/rapists/whatever be free to continue causing harm.
I'm saying the way we look at these things is fucked up and counterintuitive.
I dont know what I would do to someone who raped my daughter or killed my wife (probably kill them) Thats not even what I'm talking about.

obviously if you have been killed the damage has been done to you. It would be short-sighted to say that violent crimes affect only the victims though. After you are killed what about your family? friends? neighbors?

I'm saying that other cultures (that we've mostly wiped out by now I'm sure) had a different view of violent crimes (or even other crimes, like theft)
Instead of "dont steal" it was, "if someone steals we will do this to minimize the damage the situation can cause"
For example there is one culture (forget which) that when you are caught in the act of adultery, you have to move to another village. This is not a punishment. This is to minimize the damage from the act. understand?
or am I still a little unclear?

"Two wrongs don't make a right. You shouldn't fight violence with more violence."

You miss the argument I made entirely. It is to prevent a different, more serious wrong that I support jail-time (without getting into the point that if you go around raping people, you do not have any rights)

"would it be better to tell a 2 year old over and over not to color on the wall, that they are absolutely forbidden
or make sure you have a sponge handy?"

Alternatively, you could have a sponge but forbid the child from drawing all over the wall? You've got a really stupid false dichotomy.

it's not a perfect metaphor.

The justice system is the forbidance, but not the sponge

@Sic - the justice system is also supposed to be the sponge. Corrections officer is the title that used to be prison guard because the idea is to rehabilitate the inmates (i.e. "sponge" away the issues that make them act out).

does anyone here really believe that prisons rehabilitate?

I did use the phrase "supposed to be" as a qulifier. :-)

but saying what it SHOULD be ignores what it IS

"does anyone here really believe that prisons rehabilitate?"

The system is fundamentally flawed, but for the time they are in prison, rapists find rape very difficult to carry out.

@Panthers: "After a man rapes your daughter, what would you like to be done to him here on Earth?" In principle, nothing. I would try to move far away though. However, I do not have children, so I can't really know what I'd do to the man. (I hope I would still do nothing)

@Ghost: "but for the time they are in prison, rapists find rape very difficult to carry out." Obviously you have never heard of prison rape.
"Alternatively, you could have a sponge but forbid the child from drawing all over the wall? You've got a really stupid false dichotomy." And you have a straw man. You forgot Sic's argument of: Why waste time forbidding something when you know the child will do it anyway?

"@Sic "does anyone here really believe that prisons rehabilitate?"

Perhaps for a few, and good luck to them. For the rest, I believe they prevent those (once caught) who cannot control themselves and discourage those who can, either of which is good enough for me.

Equating small children who misbehave to grown adults who commit a crime is ridiculous. With a child forbidding something and then dealing with the consequences, punishment & clean-up, is part of the socialisation that makes them respect rules when they are adults. Just doing clean up is going to teach them that misbehaving is OK and some little ones who either do not understand or are testing the boundaries will grow up into real shits. I blame the parents.

@Sic "obviously if you have been killed the damage has been done to you."

Exactly. Stop brain-farting about systemic violence and minimising the damage, you are writing an offender's charter. Use your intellect on stopping crime in the first place.

"@Ghost: "but for the time they are in prison, rapists find rape very difficult to carry out." Obviously you have never heard of prison rape. "

No, I never said that it didn't ever happen, but in prison, there are generally very few females and many males, which isn't always to everyone's taste...

" You forgot Sic's argument of: Why waste time forbidding something when you know the child will do it anyway?"

I didn't forget it, I ignored it on the grounds that it's just stupid. He just assumes that the likelihood of a child doing something wicked is totally independent of how the child is brought up... absurd!

"No, I never said that it didn't ever happen, but in prison, there are generally very few females and many males, which isn't always to everyone's taste..."

Just a minor point: rape is rarely about sexual preference, more just as a show of dominance.

"" You forgot Sic's argument of: Why waste time forbidding something when you know the child will do it anyway?"

I didn't forget it, I ignored it on the grounds that it's just stupid. He just assumes that the likelihood of a child doing something wicked is totally independent of how the child is brought up... absurd!"


the child is a metaphor dude. theres no child.

""" You forgot Sic's argument of: Why waste time forbidding something when you know the child will do it anyway?"

I didn't forget it, I ignored it on the grounds that it's just stupid. He just assumes that the likelihood of a child doing something wicked is totally independent of how the child is brought up... absurd!"


the child is a metaphor dude. theres no child."

*Analogy

It's clearly a crap analogy, too. The idea that a criminal justice system doesn't change people's actions is blatantly absurd.

@Ghost: Would you murder or steal if there was no government?

"@Ghost: Would you murder or steal if there was no government?"

murder is defined as unlawful killing, and steal as to move silently...sorry

Anyway, I would not kill in an immoral manner (if someone is breaking another's human rights, it is not intrinsically immoral to kill them), or deprive someone of property in an immoral manner (similarly).

@Ghost: Then why do you think others would in anarchy?

Conservative Man: People kill other people now, and I don't think that would change in an anarchy. There is no way that by creating anarchy you will instill morals in every human being. The only difference is that these killers under your system would not have to pay for their actions.

@Tom: Exactly, they kill eachother NOW too. So abolishing government won't add to, or decrease from, their ranks. The same amount of people (approximately) will be killing eachother in anarchy. Right now, we have the evil government, and some criminals. Abolish the government, and we have some criminals.

"The only difference is that these killers under your system would not have to pay for their actions." Exactly. I don't think they should until God punishes them.

"The same amount of people (approximately) will be killing eachother in anarchy"
-No, because criminals won't be put in jail, people will then have to kill these criminals as there is no law. So the number of killers should at least double. And the amount of deaths will increase much much higher as the killers won't be put in jail by police, so they will be free to continue killing until someone manages to kill them which could take a wile especially if they are killing in secret. Also people may be more likely to kill over bad romances, theft, and insults, as there is no law which they could fear.