Prisons, quarantine zones or punishment?

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,220
Interesting article, relevant to this discussion:


But Morgan says he also wants to rise above his own thirst for retribution. And in that spirit, he has been donating art supplies for use by Guantanamo detainees and guards alike. Earlier this month, military officials who run the prison accepted his latest batch of donated supplies, a small act of grace in one of the world's most unforgiving places.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,086
I didn't know about this legal "depraved indifference" modifier. Now that I do (without having taken a lot of time to really think about it) I question it's utility too. Or any modifiers? Potentially a big can of worms here. I'm sure this has been hashed out a million times by a million people more qualified than I, and we probably have a million laws that reflect just how much I don't know about the legal implications of what we are discussing. But I'm talking less about the legal sense and more about the social sense. I'm not sure if that distinction can be made either. This is all quite nebulous and that's why I don't like it.
Just like there are levels in Dante’s Nine Circles of Hell. It's an old tradition of some evils are more evil than others because of human emotions or the lack of them.
https://www.thoughtco.com/dantes-9-circles-of-hell-741539
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
6,782
Probably not the direction your reply was meant to take the discussion, but... "terror"[-ist,-ism-etc.] can be (usually is) in the same category as "hate" in my book. The axiom "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" holds true more often than not. And just like "hate," in addition to being almost always totally subjective, it is used/mis-used/abused with such regularity that it has very little credible meaning any more. And, like "hate" I am frightened by the amount of legal weight that it could be allowed to hold. Manage to make someone into a "domestic terrorist" for not holding the same beliefs as you, and this is a good way to nullify the constitution. Slippery slope. Scary stuff.

On a lighter note, I am in awe of this man's humanity. He should be an example to all of us.
 

ericgibbs

Joined Jan 29, 2010
18,766
Hi,

Good and Evil thoughts only exist in the Minds of Humans, both can share the same Mind.

Sadly, prevailing circumstances can bring either one into dominance.

E
 

SamR

Joined Mar 19, 2019
5,031
I'm not even sure what a Hate Crime is. Somewhere between "Sticks and stone will break my bones, but words will never hurt me" and "You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater"? Don't even get me started on Cancel Culture! That is off topic for Quarantine vs. Punishment anyhow. There are a LOT of non-violent offenders incarcerated in one of the most violent institutions in the US. Are they not worthy or capable of rehabilitation? Who knows since there is almost no effort made in the US prison system for rehabilitation? A very large majority of them are non-violent drug users caught with small amounts of personal use drugs that are classified as Class 1 Felony Possession (such as marijuana). Is society really being served by incarcerating them? Some states don't think so and have decriminalized possession even though it remains a Federal Class 1 Felony. The US Prison system has a LOT of faults that need to be addressed but it is the US Justice system that sent them there so it cannot be absolved from blame either.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
6,782
Just like there are levels in Dante’s Nine Circles of Hell. It's an old tradition of some evils are more evil than others because of human emotions or the lack of them.
Do you agree with the old tradition? I think I'm on the fence. I asked the question earlier with regards to the crime of hate vs the crime of (what I now know to be) depraved indifference; Is one murder somehow worse than the other? I asked it rhetorically but maybe the scenario I described wasn't as fair as it should have been. If the crime of hate was instead contrasted against a crime of passion it would be more arguable. Klansman kills black man Vs. Distraught husband kills wife's lover. I think almost anyone would agree that the act of the klansman is more evil than the act of the husband. But is it? Do you believe it is? I think I believe so, but I can't seem to use any word other than believe, which is another of those pesky words that defy absolute definition (by definition in this case)

I think I must agree with @ericgibbs this case, it's a human construct, and I think that's the whole point I've been trying to make, without even knowing it.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,086
Hi,

Good and Evil thoughts only exist in the Minds of Humans, both can share the same Mind.

Sadly, prevailing circumstances can bring either one into dominance.

E
I'm a believer that evil (I'm not talking supernatural here) is not a choice in some people. It's who and what they are. Many of us have seen evil, smelled it and felt it to the core of our being. Your typical dog can sense it when protecting their owner.

If indeed we are born with X gender and X preference then 'evil' as humans understand it is 'Natural Born' too. Neuroscientists suggest there is no such thing as evil but they are poking the brain with primitive spears and electric shocks to build a inadequate framework of the physical basis of the human mind. Theirs is a belief just like mine is, as good and what is evil is beyond the domain of science.
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,086
Do you agree with the old tradition? I think I'm on the fence. I asked the question earlier with regards to the crime of hate vs the crime of (what I now know to be) depraved indifference; Is one murder somehow worse than the other? I asked it rhetorically but maybe the scenario I described wasn't as fair as it should have been. If the crime of hate was instead contrasted against a crime of passion it would be more arguable. Klansman kills black man Vs. Distraught husband kills wife's lover. I think almost anyone would agree that the act of the klansman is more evil than the act of the husband. But is it? Do you believe it is? I think I believe so, but I can't seem to use any word other than believe, which is another of those pesky words that defy absolute definition (by definition in this case)

I think I must agree with @ericgibbs this case, it's a human construct, and I think that's the whole point I've been trying to make, without even knowing it.
I agree that Klansman kills black man is not why the US jails are full. Black man kills black man is not a sexy headline that sells soap.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
6,782
I think I know where I'm going with this now...

Should sentencing take into account these things which are arguable, subjective, human constructs? Hate, terror, indifference, passion, etc.? Murder is not a human construct (maybe the idea of whether or not it's evil is, but I don't want open my mind that far). Murder either happened or it didn't. That's not subjective.. Whether or not it was done out of hate, the desire to inflict terror, overwhelming human emotion, etc., is (IMO) subjective, and irrelevant. Or is it? Should it matter? Or should the husband get the same sentence as the klansman who gets the same sentence as the marathon bomber who gets the same sentence as the drug dealer who executed a rival? I think if we wanted to prove in a court of law that the sentence we administered in a court of law was fair, they would all get the same sentence.
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,086
I think I know where I'm going with this now...

Should sentencing take into account these things which are arguable, subjective, human constructs? Hate, terror, indifference, passion, etc.? Murder is not a human construct (maybe the idea of whether or not it's evil is, but I don't want open my mind that far). Murder either happened or it didn't. That's not subjective.. Whether or not it was done out of hate, the desire to inflict terror, overwhelming human emotion, etc., is (IMO) subjective, and irrelevant. Or is it? Should it matter? Or should the husband get the same sentence as the klansman who gets the same sentence as the marathon bomber who gets the same sentence as the drug dealer who executed a rival? I think if we wanted to prove in a court of law that the sense we administered in a court of law was fair, they would all get the same sentence.
We do need to be subjective because we are humans and not legal robots. There are 'hate' crimes that are understandable if not justifiable. Man kills, in cold blood, a person that raped and murdered his child. That's about as pure of a hate crime as you can get but the emotional rational makes it understandable and a possible sentence modifier.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
6,782
We do need to be subjective because we are humans and not legal robots. There are 'hate' crimes that are understandable if not justifiable.
Ok. Good point. I will chew on that for a while.
Man kills, in cold blood, a person that raped and murdered his child. That's about as pure of a hate crime as you can get but the emotional rational makes it understandable and a possible sentence modifier.
I agree here, with the scenario you provided. I do. Someone else might not. What if the scenario just involve rape, not murder of the child, the defense argued that it was consensual, and the jury included members of NAMBLA?

Maybe that's too unrealistic an example?

What if the guantanamo detainees were to stand trial in Afghanistan right now instead of here?

The reason I'm playing devil's advocate is because of the implications and precedents. If we acknowledge and accept that morality is: 1. subjective, 2. determined by the opinion of the majority, 3. Legally enforceable upon others, and 4. That our interpretation of the breach of it is sufficient grounds to condemn a person (which is, if I'm not mistaken, exactly where we are), then we've put ourselves in a position where "hate speech" stands a chance of being a real thing, is subject to the whims of ever-changing popular opinion, and is punishable by law. There is no such thing as the first amendment. There is no such thing as any of the freedoms we claim to have.

Maybe this is why I always have this thought in the back of my head that freedom is a delusion. Maybe the whole concept of freedom is a farce. Because I can't think of any compromise between what I described above and total anarchy.
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,086
Ok. Good point. I will chew on that for a while.

I agree here, with the scenario you provided. I do. Someone else might not. What if the scenario just involve rape, not murder of the child, the defense argued that it was consensual, and the jury included members of NAMBLA?

Maybe that's too unrealistic an example?

What if the guantanamo detainees were to stand trial in Afghanistan right now instead of here?

The reason I'm playing devil's advocate is because of the implications and precedents. If we acknowledge and accept that morality is: 1. subjective, 2. determined by the opinion of the majority, 3. Legally enforceable upon others, and 4. That our interpretation of the breach of it is sufficient grounds to condemn a person (which is, if I'm not mistaken, exactly where we are), then we've put ourselves in a position where "hate speech" stands a chance of being a real thing, is subject to the whims of ever-changing popular opinion, and is punishable by law. There is no such thing as the first amendment. There is no such thing as any of the freedoms we claim to have.

Maybe this is why I always have this thought in the back of my head that freedom is a delusion. Maybe the whole concept of freedom is a farce. Because I can't think of any compromise between what I described above and total anarchy.
In Afghanistan the Taliban would shoot the half (Isis, etc ...) of the Guantanamo detainees that we both agree are 'evil'. It's all relative.
https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...liban-to-fight-isis-k-in-afghanistan-pentagon

Get locked up in jail for a few decades and when you're out of jail ask the question, is freedom a delusion again. No, freedom is not a farce because it can be lost.
 
Last edited:

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
6,782
we both agree are 'evil'. It's all relative..
Exactly. It's all relative; that's what I've been saying.

Get locked up in jail for a few decades and when you're out of jail ask the question, is freedom a delusion again. No, freedom is not a farce becasue it can be lost.
Good point. I should stop trying to make everything black and white. Nothing is ever that simple. It's all shades of grey and therefore frustrating, but that's how it is and trying to make it be anything else is futile.
 

visionofast

Joined Oct 17, 2018
106
religious vs science, the battle between gods of wine and gods of water,
I've read some about definition of crime or generally about human beeing in both domains and found many conflicts.
briefly I see 2 main paradigms. one is the people who don't believe in concepts like evil and evilness, as freudians and positivists who assume human as a system with feedbacks from genetics,instincts,environment 's algebra like what is for engineering sciences.so, for these kind ,drinking water with some aspirin drops is the best part.
the other ones are those who have read books about Solomon and his genies.for this kind ,aspirin drops dosn't work . they must look for their Solomon in life to deal with surrounding evils they see every day ,via a key book plus a chalice.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,086
religious vs science, the battle between gods of wine and gods of water,
I've read some about definition of crime or generally about human beeing in both domains and found many conflicts.
briefly I see 2 main paradigms. one is the people who don't believe in concepts like evil and evilness, as freudians and positivists who assume human as a system with feedbacks from genetics,instincts,environment 's algebra like what is for engineering sciences.so, for these kind ,drinking water with some aspirin drops is the best part.
the other ones are those who have read books about Solomon and his genies.for this kind ,aspirin drops dosn't work . they must look for their Solomon in life to deal with surrounding evils they see every day ,via a key book plus a chalice.
There is a alternative paradigm. Those that think science and faith are both full of crap on the principles of good and evil. Science is really clueless in this domain and faith is a little more honest in saying, it's just faith.
 

Thread Starter

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,415
All we can really do is judge people by their actions. Is there a member of a white supremacist group and do something to a group of blacks that action we can judge. Kind of like convicts, if convicts hang around other convicts things don't usually workout very well. Being a member of a group that professes they are somehow better and more privileged did anyone else is a very strong clue. If they do something bad, we can use that against them as a predictor of future behavior. The action itself is criminal not the belief.
 

ericgibbs

Joined Jan 29, 2010
18,766
hi strantor,

Thinking thru my post #44, I believe it should have included the following phrase.

Good and Evil thoughts only exist in the Minds of Humans, both can share the same Mind.

Sadly, prevailing circumstances, real or imagined, can bring either one into dominance.

As evolutionary animals we are preprogrammed to respond, using the 'fight or flight' response to any perceived threat. Which works, else we would not be here.

Regards Prison inmates, we operate on the principle of 'out sight out of mind', which does not really solve the problem.

Also we are territorial animals, locking away offenders in their own contained area, is one easy method of keeping them off our 'patch'.

When one thinks about it, that's all we are really doing

E
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
6,782
As evolutionary animals we are preprogrammed to respond, using the 'fight or flight' response to any perceived threat. Which works, else we would not be here.

Regards Prison inmates, we operate on the principle of 'out sight out of mind', which does not really solve the problem.

Also we are territorial animals, locking away offenders in their own contained area, is one easy method of keeping them off our 'patch'.

When one thinks about it, that's all we are really doing

E
Reminds me of this video I watched recently, on the topic of exile from lion societies.


It's too bad we don't have an immense wild savanna where we can send bad people to fight for their lives and most likely lose. That would be much more efficient than the prison system. I think that's what the English meant Australia to be. I guess that makes the Australian continent the world's largest proof of concept exercise demonstrating the rehabilitation efficacy of the exile solution over our current solution.
 

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,220
Reminds me of this video I watched recently, on the topic of exile from lion societies.


It's too bad we don't have an immense wild savanna where we can send bad people to fight for their lives and most likely lose. That would be much more efficient than the prison system. I think that's what the English meant Australia to be. I guess that makes the Australian continent the world's largest proof of concept exercise demonstrating the rehabilitation efficacy of the exile solution over our current solution.
 
Top