haha, I'm sorry I forgot this was an international site. I'm talking about the American system, but I can use examples from any nation so if you have some feel free to share.

I think your premise is flawed. I think our system punishes for the action AND tries to reform them. We DO allow the death penalty (which varies by state). I'm not sure I understand what your case is.

Darwinism has (should?) affect the criminal justice system. As proof of this, I present A B and C?

I don't have a case, I'm just throwing the topic out there to see what different people think. I'm still undecided on the subject myself. I think that you're right in saying that the system tries to punish aswell as reform.

What do you mean 'no debates'. You have just opened a debate.

asking for opinions, not on-going discussion.

'Supposedly that is a bad thing.' What exactly is the bad thing you are referring to?

What has Darwinism to do with it? If we understand the thesis then we can perhaps opine.

Re your earlier comment 'I forgot this was an international site. I'm talking about the American system': I think you have to think of this topic as one of global significance and take into account the justice systems around the world.

that it would hinder the distribution of justice.

My opinion? F**k therapy. Off with her head!

The distribution of justice has nothing to do with Darwinism. He's all about *natural* selection. Nothing to do with justice. Life is never fair.

Ok. I leave this thread to allow other more knowledgeable people to give their opinions.

are you suggesting that instead of simply punishing (and possibly executing) the offender, we also remove all trace of their genetic material from the genepool? executing his/her children aswell.

I think that sounds like thinking from the 19th centrury, the idea that criminals are mentally backward, socially unevolved such that they can't grasp the same ideas which civilised people understand.

I would rather assume that circumstances leads them to take advantage of the system, humans using their intelligence to find the easiest way (which they can think of) to make the greatest gain (by their definition of gain, which may in many cases be money, but on others it might just be having enough to support their families)

I think darwinism fails to accurately describe the system. In our social system humans decide what is and is not appropriate (thus are the natural selectors) - the enviroment of rules which we live by. If i'm not mistaken Darinism talks about a individual finding the best way to exist within their enviroment, whereas humans define their enviroment though that enviroment 'society' probably does change around the same rate as 'nature'

Humans are capable of re-adjusting their strategies/choices much faster than they can re-adjust their genes.

But 'the distribution of justice'? It would be easier if you could define your terms more clearly.

The ideal of reform started long before Darwin. If you look at the early American system including the Colonial period. When compared to the European systems at the time we were very progressive. This was inpart due to groups like the Quakers who saw reform as a moral issue, and any capital and corporal punishment as a sin. Then also the cronic manpower shortage in the New World was an additional incentive for the reform movement, and with a vast wildnerness there was very little incentive or means to hunt a person seeking to escape the more severe punishments..

jman, your approach to this seems to be missing a few steps.

First, you need to lay out your position, which - assuming I understand you - is that by allowing criminals to breed, we beget more crime.

This has absolutely zero to do with Evolution, unless your thesis is that crime is both hereditary and offers a reproductive advantage compared to a non-criminal. and I'd *love* to see your evidence to back *that* up.

And what mental punishments did the Quakers inflict upon their own?

I think criminality is not hereditary, but can be learned in our upbringing. However, it does offer an advantage in that the criminal mind will have less inhibitions about *stabbing* others than others would. This makes them rich/powerful and more likely to attract mates. Reproductive advantage.

It was mostly later half of the 19th century that a warped version of Darwinism started to influance society, the decreasing of wildnerness, increased population, the increased number and size of cities, and failure of the early and crude forms of reform.

I think perhaps this whole topic should be ended, unless the OP wants to clarify what the heck he is asking.

(Incidentally, the reason I asked about 'which' justice system; the OP seemed to say that Darwinism had effected 'the' justice system. If it is true, there is no single 'justice system'. As there was a good chance his thesis would be regarding a particular justice system, the question is entirely relevant.)

How did "survival of the fittest"-ism influence the criminal justice system to "rehabilitate the unfit"? If you chose this topic I don't understand where you're coming from. Are you just looking for a reason to bash Darwinism? If you were assigned this topic you misunderstood it. The death penalty is itself Darwinism so how could Darwinism influence the death penalty away?

Ok, guys, lets get real. "Darwainism" - or the Theory of Evolution - has jack to do with the death penalty, at least how it is practiced in the United States. Someone who gets the chair and someone rotting away in a cell until the die of old age are equally likely to have kids, and hence to pass on genes.

It's not like the choice is fry them or free them.

@ timur Bread and water, isolation, mandirtory prayer. Yes crude and not very effective, but better than chopping a finger or a hand, branding, or hanging for stealing a loaf of bread. Give at credit at least for trying and good intentions. You must recall they did not have the knowledge or the tools of today.

If you take Darwinism to its logical conclusion, your goal should be to get you and your off-spring to survive. This would be accomplished by removing crimminals from society and the genepool. Since this is not really being done, I would say darwinism has not had much of a direct impact in this area.

It seems to me what has affected the justice system more is the Post-Modernist notion that everyone is inherently good. The only reason they do "antisocial" things is that society has treated them badly (like what happened to Frankenstein's monster-originally, it was the epitome goodness and love untill everyone rejected it).
Thus, the idea is to reform them, to make them tolerant individuals.
Also, since values are relitive in this system, you don't want to give some one too stiff a punishment, since who are you to decide what is true for some one else?
And if it is not the crimianal's fault that he did whatever, but society's, it would be unjust to give him any punishment beyond therepy anyway.

That is my opinion, since you asked.

@warsprite: That is a really interesting post. Don't quite know what to make of it. Maybe it's just that time of the morning <~/

similarily @warspite: an interesting little piece of justice history which i wasn't aware of.

I do think religion has had a much bigger effect on the development of justice in the US than it did in Europe in the last century. (though the effect of the Catholic church in Ireland on society and particularily education was huge until at least the late 60s...)

@ Timur I was trying to show that the reform verse punishment issue has been around much longer than Social Darwinism. That several other, more important and changing factors having impacted the criminal justice system. Of course I was assuming he was meaning the effect of Social Darwinism ideal on the system not actual Darwinism.

Perhaps biological determinism could affect the justice system: bad people are bad because they are wired that way (or so the idea goes). If we can change people wiring, what need would their be for punitive justice?

There are moves afoot to produce some sort of 'Global Justice', its happening on a smaller scale in Europe but its still a long way off. Depends on what context you are pushing the Darwinist idea. Whether its the evolution of a Global Justice system or as others have suggested, the eradication of scum from the gene pool. Some people are scum and will remain that way no matter what you put in place for them.
Most humans are inherently lazy and its the path of least resistance that they take, whether that be Burglary over employment or letting the state do it all for them while they breed even more scum bags for us all to deal with. With the way in which the liberal view of punishment is ever growing, or should i say developing i cant see any way in which 'punishment' is really going to help....but it all depends on what you want i suppose!

Man I don't understand what the Original Poster was trying to say or ask at all. Rephrase and try again and maybe I'll have something to say about it. But as it stands you've just got a bunch of terms next to one another, I don't understand what you're trying to get at at all.

@BZD: Your last post is (in American parlance) absolutely GROSS! Not AWESOME, but GROSS!
Guess you just wanted a response.

@warsprite: Unless you're in a prison, who really gives a f**k?

BigZombieDude has just been nominated 'Scumbag of the Year' 2010! Let's hear it for him . . .

@warsprite: Could you please tell me what the f*ck
- we are talking about?
- this thread is all about?

no death penalty has nothing to do with darwinism but christianity