Which do you prefer, to punish the guilty or to reduce the rate of immorality?

Reduction of 'immorality' is obviously the way to go. Take the illegal immigration 'problem'. Our drug policies and our not so well known foreign policies are largely to blame for making Mexico, Central and South America so inhospitable to it's native peoples... but people that like to scream and holler about illegals don't ever seem to want to talk about that. They also don't seem to ever want to talk about making the citizenship process better. They don't want to talk about the fact that GOP resistance to immigration reform has less to do opposing amnesty and more to do with lobbying by American farmers and factory owners that hire 'illegals' because it's cheaper labor. They don't want to talk about the fact that legal migrant workers get trapped here by their employers who steal their papers proving they can legally be here with some ending up in human trafficking.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

Well not necessarily. I've been saying since the beginning of the thread that it has to be shown through proper scientific research that such a thing is the case. We can't just say, "Hey I think making murder legal will reduce the murder rate." Then just make murder legal. I want there to be ACTUAL scientific evidence to back it up first. So if it doesn't hold that making murder legal reduces the murder rate than I wouldn't advocate making it legal.

That's a relief.

I mean, can you imagine making rape legal to reduce rape?

a reply to: Kali74

I wanted to thank you for being one of the few people in the thread who didn't immediately come in and start talking about abortion again. Not that I'm trying to discourage the abortion debate here or anything; it's just that I've presented more information than JUST the abortion debate to consider for this topic.

As for what you are saying, spot on. You brought up things regarding illegal immigration that I've brought up in other threads. I almost said this thread, but then I just remembered I was talking about this issue in a different thread today. Lol.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

Well not necessarily. I've been saying since the beginning of the thread that it has to be shown through proper scientific research that such a thing is the case. We can't just say, "Hey I think making murder legal will reduce the murder rate." Then just make murder legal. I want there to be ACTUAL scientific evidence to back it up first. So if it doesn't hold that making murder legal reduces the murder rate than I wouldn't advocate making it legal.

That's a relief.

I mean, can you imagine making rape legal to reduce rape?

There are a lot of things that are illegal that I have trouble imaging being legal to reduce their occurrence, but many of those things likely need additional solutions applied to them on top of making them legal to reduce their rates. For instance, to address the murder point, we are going to have to drastically increase our understanding of mental illnesses and do something about our drug problem (that may rely on legalizing drugs). So it's more a process. Then there may very well BE actions that we just can't reduce through my solution here and we just HAVE to make them illegal. Murder and rape may be two of those. Who knows?

Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't want to just end all legality on things tomorrow and institute anarchy. We have to take baby steps.

# life. Choose murder.

I'm just kidding, obviously. I actually endorse mandatory abortions.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Simply changing the legality of a thing does not change its morality.

Murder is immoral no matter what the particular laws governing it might be. For example, in some places, it's OK to murder someone if they create what is perceived to be a stain on your family honor. In our country, you can murder someone if they are residing in your womb and you'd rather they not be there.

Another good example would be slavery which has been at times legal although always immoral.

No matter what the law is, it's still an immoral act in the end. Changing the law won't circumvent that truth.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: [post=19604303]Krazysh0t[/po

In our country, you can murder someone if they are residing in your womb and you'd rather they not be there.

Sucks to be that kid.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Abortion rates are higher everywhere because people no longer have to face the consequences of their actions.

Responsibility has been absolved from the individual.

Use religion, abuse religion, justify it however you wish.

If the individual took responsibility for their sexual actions, then there'd not be the abortions we see.

QED

This just seems like a "Golden Age Fallacy".

People today are the same as people yesterday. The souls holed up in the city of Rome likely shared all the same traits as our modern urban inhabitants.

Ill tell you one benefit that we have today, vs "the golden age": in days gone past you couldn't have an abortion that didn't kill you. So infanticide was far, far more common. Is that responsible enough?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'll tell you what else was far, far more common in those days too - death in child birth. It was much easier to die if you got pregnant in those days than it is today. So yes, it could be true that infanticide was higher and it could also be true that there were fewer pregnancies because women were less cavalier about taking that risk too.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'll tell you what else was far, far more common in those days too - death in child birth. It was much easier to die if you got pregnant in those days than it is today. So yes, it could be true that infanticide was higher and it could also be true that there were fewer pregnancies because women were less cavalier about taking that risk too.

It could be true.....but it isn't

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Simply changing the legality of a thing does not change its morality.

I didn't say it did.

Murder is immoral no matter what the particular laws governing it might be. For example, in some places, it's OK to murder someone if they create what is perceived to be a stain on your family honor. In our country, you can murder someone if they are residing in your womb and you'd rather they not be there.

I'm not trying to argue that making something legal will suddenly make it moral. I'm arguing that maybe punishing the guilty isn't the way to go about deterring people from doing things that society considers immoral.

Another good example would be slavery which has been at times legal although always immoral.

No matter what the law is, it's still an immoral act in the end. Changing the law won't circumvent that truth.

I don't think you understood the OP.

punishing the guilty or reducing the rate of immorality are not the only options. We'll have to see how other forms of punishment goes.

If it stays illegal, but instead of jail, they were forced to some type of therapy/class to deal with their issue, how would it the rate compare against how it currently is while illegal with a jail punish and against the rate of the lower rate of immorality/crime when legalized?

If therapy/education works better than legalization or jail, then maybe that is the best option.

a reply to: arpgme

Isn't that similar to the education approach that offered up in the OP though? But instead of teaching them in school, we try to reteach them after getting caught doing the offense?

Though that is a good point, deassociate prison from the offense could work as well.

Are you more concerned with punishing the guilty or do you want to reduce the rate of immorality?

Both.

If one had a busted water-pipe, they would most likely mop up the mess (effect) and then fix the leak (cause). But to fix only the pipe would have many still slipping around and up...

"what if it can be shown that making murder legal would reduce the rate of murder, would you legalize it?"

I view the Ten Commandments (and other code of ethics) as reverse psychology. If I were to tell you that for the next 30 seconds; "Thou shall not envision a Monkey or even think of the word Monkey," you would not even make it to the ten second mark. The reason is due to the fact is goes against the nature of freewill. The mind unconsciously responds to this mental assault on freedom of expression.

Most people are hardwired towards good. Legalizing murder would not lower the murder rate. Freewill cannot be suppressed and this why despite laws to help curb behaviour that destroys the fabric of society the institution of prisons still remain.

If anyone believes laws make a difference they should deeply contemplate the existence of prisons at the same time.

So to finally answer the question in the OP (though I'm sure many already get an idea of where I'm going with this), I prefer reducing the rate of immorality over punishing the guilty.

I agree, but first we must find the source of the leak.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So I'm late to the party again... I wanted to respond yesterday morning when I saw this but didn't have time.

I agree in both principle and theory. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Obviously -- or at least it should be. But I do believe, sadly, that YES, people do just want to force their sense of morality on others.

I have to take it back to organic law and natural rights... and there are too many people (on every side) who have no respect for our inalienable rights (which is basically whatever I can do for myself by myself and/or with other consenting adults), and just want to force their will on everyone else. It's not a left or right thing anymore (if it ever was).

It's Christians telling gays they can't get married... and gays telling Christians they have to bake them a cake... it's the color of law telling me I cannot consume this natural plant... and the color of law telling me I must take that pharmaceutical... And on and on and on.

In threads regarding "anti-discrimination" laws, I have offered several alternative approaches that would encourage non-discriminatory business practices while discouraging discrimination... no one cared. It's all about force.

Force doesn't change hearts and minds. Force doesn't encourage innovation and new -- effective! -- solutions for old problems. Force just creates more chaos.

What we need is respect -- not tolerance -- for everyone's right to autonomy. Do what thy will, but harm none. Force should only be used to stop/punish those who use their free will to harm others.

originally posted by: Involutionist
Both.

If one had a busted water-pipe, they would most likely mop up the mess (effect) and then fix the leak (cause). But to fix only the pipe would have many still slipping around and up...

The point I'm making is that it may not be possible to have both.

I view the Ten Commandments (and other code of ethics) as reverse psychology. If I were to tell you that for the next 30 seconds; "Thou shall not envision a Monkey or even think of the word Monkey," you would not even make it to the ten second mark. The reason is due to the fact is goes against the nature of freewill. The mind unconsciously responds to this mental assault on freedom of expression.

Most people are hardwired towards good. Legalizing murder would not lower the murder rate. Freewill cannot be suppressed and this why despite laws to help curb behaviour that destroys the fabric of society the institution of prisons still remain.

If anyone believes laws make a difference they should deeply contemplate the existence of prisons at the same time.

You say this, but have no scientific data to back it up. I mean I don't necessarily believe that making murder legal with reduce the murder rate, but I'm not going to be naive enough to just make up some reasoning that SOUNDS good on why it is true. I'd rather that my stance were backed up with science. It's just that I fear the alternative of making murder legal right now to test the hypothesis.

I agree, but first we must find the source of the leak.

Once you find the leak, you attack the leak with education though, not a prison time.

a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, we certainly do, but we can only start if we treat the people screwing up with respect back. Violence just creates a circle of violence. Prison is just revenge for a grievance. It doesn't correct the behavior, and it seems to only exist to placate the victims for their loss. But at the end of the day, they are still victims and will always have that on them. With my solution we may be able to prevent the crime from ever occurring to begin with because the person who did the crime has been educated and raised properly so as NOT to do that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

First off, thank you kindly for taking the time to read my post and contemplate it.

The point I'm making is that it may not be possible to have both.

I know.... and the point I was making is that it makes no difference if only one side is addressed. Fix the leak without mopping up the mess leaves everyone still drenched in the mess.

You say this, but have no scientific data to back it up.

I was philosophizing, my friend. This is the Metaphysics and Philosophy Forum and therefore do not need any scientific data to to back it up concerning this topic. I choose to philosophize about it-end of story.

I mean I don't necessarily believe that making murder legal with reduce the murder rate, but I'm not going to be naive enough to just make up some reasoning that SOUNDS good on why it is true. I'd rather that my stance were backed up with science. It's just that I fear the alternative of making murder legal right now to test the hypothesis.

I'd rather that my stance were backed up with science. + I fear the alternative of making murder legal right now to test the hypothesis.

Contemplate that...

Once you find the leak, you attack the leak with education though, not a prison time.

What would that curriculum consist of? And more importantly; is it backed up with science?

Hypothesis, when backed up with scientific data ceases to be a hypothesis....

originally posted by: Involutionist
I know.... and the point I was making is that it makes no difference if only one side is addressed. Fix the leak without mopping up the mess leaves everyone still drenched in the mess.

How does prison time fix the leak though? People clearly aren't learning their lessons when they go to jail since the recidivism rate is so high. Heck, many call prison crime college since you go to it for some small time thing and come out with the education to pull WAY more heinous crimes.

I was philosophizing, my friend. This is the Metaphysics and Philosophy Forum and therefore do not need any scientific data to to back it up concerning this topic. I choose to philosophize about it-end of story.

Fair point, but there comes a time where one should back his thoughts up with data to make sure he his following a reasonable line of thinking. That's why I posted so many links in my OP.

I'd rather that my stance were backed up with science. + I fear the alternative of making murder legal right now to test the hypothesis.

Contemplate that...

I'm not following you here...

What would that curriculum consist of? And more importantly; is it backed up with science?

Well we would teach that the behavior is wrong, the natural consequences for your actions, the pros and cons of the activity, etc. Of course, some activities, like doing drugs, are easier to properly educate people on than others (like murder or stealing). So this couldn't be a catch all. We'd have to tailor the education for the immorality.

Another poster also brought up that instead of prison time they should get rehabilitation time. Where someone can sit with the offender and get to the root of why they do what they do, and help them come up with better solutions than to break society's rules.

Hypothesis, when backed up with scientific data ceases to be a hypothesis....

Not necessarily. Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis and it is backed up by a lot of scientific data. It takes MUCH more than just scientific data for a hypothesis to become a theory.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, we certainly do, but we can only start if we treat the people screwing up with respect back. Violence just creates a circle of violence. Prison is just revenge for a grievance. It doesn't correct the behavior, and it seems to only exist to placate the victims for their loss. But at the end of the day, they are still victims and will always have that on them. With my solution we may be able to prevent the crime from ever occurring to begin with because the person who did the crime has been educated and raised properly so as NOT to do that.

Yes, indeed. Education is always a great equalizer so to speak. When we know better, we do better. Even education after the fact can be practical and effective. I'd like to see us make more use of community service and restitution as consequences as well.

Hmmm... it should also be noted that too often, people also get quite an education in jail too -- but not the lessons we want them to learn. A friend of my kids' just spent ten days in Tent City for doing something stupid, but he said he learned how to be a better criminal while doing his time. That's NOT the education we want or need, but it's often the end result.