Gyroscopic Investing

Tex,

Under similar logic, would you say that somebody who had kidnapped a person and kept them imprisoned for decades shouldn't be sent to prison, because that's just the state doing exactly what that person had done?

Xan wrote: Tex,

Under similar logic, would you say that somebody who had kidnapped a person and kept them imprisoned for decades shouldn't be sent to prison, because that's just the state doing exactly what that person had done?

I think you probably know the answer to that question is going to be "no", and here's why:

The purpose of a prison is basically to warehouse people who can't function in a civilized society.  There are token rehabilitation efforts, and there are certain structural elements of punishment and retribution in the form of the way prisons are designed, especially when it comes to the use of solitary confinement, but prisons are basically a place to store people who have done bad things.

It's not that this approach to crime is ideal, it's just that there isn't much of an alternative--you can either leave criminals on the street or take them off the street.  Once you have taken them off the street, you can hold them in a prison cell or you can kill them.  What I am saying is that I think that holding them in a cell is a better arrangement than killing them or putting them back on the street. 

I can easily distinguish in my mind the moral dimensions of incarceration from the moral dimensions of killing people.  I can justify locking someone up who can't function in society (though I regret that such actions are necessary), but if the option of locking them up exists but we instead choose to kill them on a selective basis determined by the political benefits capital punishment creates for a district attorney in a given case, that is what troubles me.

I don't think that "eye for an eye" style punishment ever works very well.  It basically takes society down to the level of its worst criminals for no benefit that I can see.

I just think that of all of the bad options we have for dealing with people who can't function in society, a prison cell is the least uncivilized that I can see.  I do, however, think that sentences involving the ritualistic infliction of pain and public humiliation like caning is used in Singapore is actually not as dumb as it sounds.  I would much rather see a criminal punished through 15 minutes of pain that is not life threatening and won't impair him in any way once the wounds heal, as opposed to, for example, 9 months of incarceration, following by 36 months of probation during which a failed drug test leads to another 180 days in jail, followed by an extended period of probation, etc., etc., etc.  I honestly don't see how a Singapore-style caning would be any more cruel and unusual than robbing a person of years of his life by never fully allowing him to leave the criminal justice system once he enters it (which is what the criminal justice industry wants because it makes it far more profitable).

I also place killing in a different category than almost any other action we might take against people we don't like because it is so utterly final and irreversible if an error is made (and several errors in the application of capital punishment have been made).

MediumTex wrote: I just think that of all of the bad options we have for dealing with people who can't function in society, a prison cell is the least uncivilized that I can see.  I do, however, think that sentences involving the ritualistic infliction of pain and public humiliation like caning is used in Singapore is actually not as dumb as it sounds.  I would much rather see a criminal punished through 15 minutes of pain that is not life threatening and won't impair him in any way once the wounds heal, as opposed to, for example, 9 months of incarceration, following by 36 months of probation during which a failed drug test leads to another 180 days in jail, followed by an extended period of probation, etc., etc., etc.  I honestly don't see how a Singapore-style caning would be any more cruel and unusual than robbing a person of years of his life by never fully allowing him to leave the criminal justice system once he enters it (which is what the criminal justice industry wants because it makes it far more profitable).

I agree completely. Personally I would much rather be humiliated and injured in a non-life-threatening way than deprived of years of my life which I cannot get back. I can see much value in this type of punishment for low-level crimes where locking the offender away inside a small concrete box seems wildly disproportionate (drunken threats, mutual public brawling with only superficial injuries, reckless driving with minor property damage, negligent discharge of a firearm with no injuries, etc).

Curious...back to my liberal psycho babel....how does one determine guilt in the case of a brain tumor pressing on the brain in such a way as to elicit violent outbursts? Is the perpetrator guilty? If you were the person with the tumor, would you morally condemn yourself?

I can see the logic of locking someone away that poses a threat to others. It is a practical solution to an immediate problem. However, the death penalty goes deeper than just protection, it is about vengeance and moral condemnation. I find this aspect of it to be particularly troubling because it allows us to ignore the trickier and more complicated question of why certain people behave in an extremely destructive and violent manner. By morally condemning these people to death we learn nothing and in fact perpetuate the cycle of ignorance by failing to investigate more deeply the roots of anti social behavior. Socrates argued that "evil" actions stemmed from ignorance and as such he could not bring himself to morally condemn those Athenians that sentenced him to death. Rather, he looked upon them with a degree of pity. Ironically, this is very similar to Jesus' last words on the cross of "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." 

doodle wrote: Curious...back to my liberal psycho babel....how does one determine guilt in the case of a brain tumor pressing on the brain in such a way as to elicit violent outbursts? Is the perpetrator guilty? If you were the person with the tumor, would you morally condemn yourself?

Are you talking about Texas mass murderer Charles Whitman?

On August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman murdered his mother and his wife before traveling to the campus of the University of Texas, climbing inside the tower, and killing fourteen others. He was dubbed the infamous UT sniper, but his story involves much more than Marine Corps training and a proclivity for violence. In fact, Whitman complained of headaches and an altered mental state in the days and weeks leading up to the killings. His own suicide note read that "I do not really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I cannot recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts."

Whitman knew that something was wrong. His note further reads, "After my death I wish that an autopsy would be performed on me to see if there is any visible physical disorder." And indeed there was. Whitman was found to have a glioblastoma, a type of brain tumor, pressing against regions of the brain thought to be responsible for the regulation of strong emotions.

LINK

Yes, but I believe there have been others. Anyways, I'm just trying to say that our actions may be more deterministic than we think. If that truly is the case, then traditional ideas of guilt or evil become a lot more difficult when used to justify the death penalty. I won't deny that my ideas are out there, but it scares me when people get so wrapped up in the common perceptions of reality that we stop acknowledging how much of a mystery we are surrounded by. I'm less interested in sending people to the electric chair, than trying to find out what makes them tick.

doodle wrote: I won't deny that my ideas are out there, but it scares me when people get so wrapped up in the common perceptions of reality that we stop acknowledging how much of a mystery we are surrounded by. I'm less interested in sending people to the electric chair, than trying to find out what makes them tick.

Don't go too far outside of the realm of conventional morality in your search for what makes humans tick...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Vivisection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_huma ... imentation

Okay that one was below the belt, sorry. Couldn't resist! But I think it's nonetheless notable that the worst atrocities in recorded human history were carried out by agents of the state operating outside the bounds of conventional morality in search of details about the biology of human beings.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: I won't deny that my ideas are out there, but it scares me when people get so wrapped up in the common perceptions of reality that we stop acknowledging how much of a mystery we are surrounded by. I'm less interested in sending people to the electric chair, than trying to find out what makes them tick.

Don't go too far outside of the realm of conventional morality in your search for what makes humans tick...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Vivisection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_huma ... imentation

Okay that one was below the belt, sorry. Couldn't resist! But I think it's nonetheless notable that the worst atrocities in recorded human history were carried out by agents of the state operating outside the bounds of conventional morality in search of details about the biology of human beings.

I don't disagree with you, but in terms of the death penalty the fact that we don't know what causes certain behaviors is a strong argument for not employing capital punishment. If people's behavior turns out to be largely deterministic (a product of genetics and experience) then it is quite difficult to assign moral guilt. As I have said before, we have taken a very scientific approach to studying and understanding external objects, Im merely saying that we should begin to focus more attention to understanding and analyzing ourselves. If it is appropriate to try to understand and manipulate the natural world around us, why should our more primal animal urges and instincts be taken off the table? After all, the greatest danger to ourselves is really ourselves.

doodle wrote: If it is appropriate to try to understand and manipulate the natural world around us, why should our more primal animal urges and instincts be taken off the table? After all, the greatest danger to ourselves is really ourselves.

There's nothing wrong with trying to understand and alter the nature of yourself. Improving yourself is a noble goal, but when you set about trying to improve others, you may find that they don't share your definition of improvement or want to be improved. And some of the most horrific human rights abuses in history have been borne out of the desire to understand and alter others or even the nature or genetics of entire societies. Eugenics, human experimentation, vivisection of women and children… it's all pretty grotesque.

Be mindful of the fact that speaking of wanting to alter the nature of humanity is a dangerous path to tread that can easily get you misunderstood. That's all I'm saying. If you go down the rabbit hole of biological determinism and emerge thinking that behavior is genetic, therefore people who behave badly should be sterilized, well, then you've got a big problem.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: If it is appropriate to try to understand and manipulate the natural world around us, why should our more primal animal urges and instincts be taken off the table? After all, the greatest danger to ourselves is really ourselves.

There's nothing wrong with trying to understand and alter the nature of yourself. Improving yourself is a noble goal, but when you set about trying to improve others, you may find that they don't share your definition of improvement or want to be improved. And some of the most horrific human rights abuses in history have been borne out of the desire to understand and alter others or even the nature or genetics of entire societies. Eugenics, human experimentation, vivisection of women and children… it's all pretty grotesque.

Be mindful of the fact that speaking of wanting to alter the nature of humanity is a dangerous path to tread that can easily get you misunderstood. That's all I'm saying. If you go down the rabbit hole of biological determinism and emerge thinking that behavior is genetic, therefore people who behave badly should be sterilized, well, then you've got a big problem.

Yes, but if determinism is correct, then no one has a choice as to what to believe. Thus, trying to convince them to change their beliefs is futile.
On the other hand, if determinism is correct, then telling you that is also futile. In fact, in that case, no discussion has any point... other than that it is also determined. 

Libertarian666 wrote: Yes, but if determinism is correct, then no one has a choice as to what to believe. Thus, trying to convince them to change their beliefs is futile.
On the other hand, if determinism is correct, then telling you that is also futile. In fact, in that case, no discussion has any point... other than that it is also determined. 

Right. Which is why I think it's stupid, personally.

Pointedstick wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Yes, but if determinism is correct, then no one has a choice as to what to believe. Thus, trying to convince them to change their beliefs is futile.
On the other hand, if determinism is correct, then telling you that is also futile. In fact, in that case, no discussion has any point... other than that it is also determined. 

Right. Which is why I think it's stupid, personally.

You just had to say that, didn't you? 

Yes! I love discussion and it's a personal pet peeve when I encounter arguments that simply shut them down, like the "no free will" or "biological determinism" ones.

It reminds me of my maddening college days when weak debaters would just go out with, "well, how can we trust our senses, man? How can we know anything? Maybe we don't even exist!"

I just wanted to punch those guys.

Pointedstick wrote: Yes! I love discussion and it's a personal pet peeve when I encounter arguments that simply shut them down, like the "no free will" or "biological determinism" ones.

It reminds me of my maddening college days when weak debaters would just go out with, "well, how can we trust our senses, man? How can we know anything? Maybe we don't even exist!"

I just wanted to punch those guys.

PS, you don't have to jump totally on the determinism bandwagon to buy into the idea that people generally behave in accordance with their genetic predispositions and the information / experiences available to them. Rectifying societal ills like violence could come down to changing educational focus or providing more assistance in certain life skills areas like coping skills. There have been numerous studies documenting neural plasticity and the ability for humans to rewire conditioned responses or reactions to events. The fact is that we have materially progressed in western society to the point where we have the ability to blow up the earth numerous times over yet we have done little investigation into our own mental mechanism. Why do we experience things like anger, empathy, fear, ego? Surely, you are not against trying to understand the mystery of the mind, emotions, behavior etc. You know, most large research institutions have departments devoted to this...and their research doesn't necessarily involve vivisection of baby children.

What is stunning to me is that so many people have no problem with corporate entities spending billions of dollars to shape and influence human behavior through non-violent means in order to maximize profit with little concern as to the social ramifications. Yet, when someone wonders whether by exposing people to certain stimuli or conditioning we can change their disposition to lash out in a violent manner one is compared to the Nazis. Selling high fructose snacks to young children and giving them diabetes....no problem. Teaching children coping techniques to deal with anger......wicked mind control!

I just wanted to punch those guys.

Why do we allow ourselves to be thrown out of sorts by other people? Is it ego?...frustration? or is it a control issue? If our ultimate goal is happiness, then why do we let these trivial things derail us?

doodle wrote:

I just wanted to punch those guys.

Why do we allow ourselves to be thrown out of sorts by other people? Is it ego?...frustration? or is it a control issue? If our ultimate goal is happiness, then why do we let these trivial things derail us?

I thought your ultimate goal was nothing?

doodle wrote:

I just wanted to punch those guys.

Why do we allow ourselves to be thrown out of sorts by other people? Is it ego?...frustration? or is it a control issue? If our ultimate goal is happiness, then why do we let these trivial things derail us?

It was all three. That was many years in the past, back when I was very angry and arrogant, and my anger and arrogance drove me to liberalism and the belief that I knew what was better for other people. They were a bunch of sheep who would be so much better off if they just listened to my enlightened 18 year-old college-educated opinions about taxes and diversity!

Needless to say, I'm a very different person now.

Xan wrote:

doodle wrote:

I just wanted to punch those guys.

Why do we allow ourselves to be thrown out of sorts by other people? Is it ego?...frustration? or is it a control issue? If our ultimate goal is happiness, then why do we let these trivial things derail us?

I thought your ultimate goal was nothing?

Did I say that somewhere? I cant remember....find the quote cause Im curious. I say a lot of things :-)

doodle wrote:Did I say that somewhere? I cant remember....find the quote cause Im curious. I say a lot of things :-)

Maybe I'm confused...  I thought just recently you were saying how great it was to disappear, and to cease to exist, etc etc.

Oh!... what I think I was trying to say was that as I understand the description of enlightenment it is the merging of yourself with the absolute. In other words enlightenment is transcending yourself to identify with something greater than your own ego. In that case you exist, but not really....because you no longer identify with yourself as the skin encapsulated and isolated individual that you once were.

The easiest analogy I can think of is the wave and the ocean. Enlightenment is the wave realizing that it's true self is in fact the ocean. So instead of their being waves in the ocean, there is only an ocean waving....subtle, but different.

In the end these are just different perspectives and lenses through which to view  this happening going on here. Interestingly enough, this perspective is almost identical to that of Christian Gnosticism. It wasn't really until the formation of the Catholic Church thadrone idea of original sin, mans separation from the divine, and redemption through Christ came about.

Later writings from other apostles that have been unearthed (after having been buried by catholic church) such as the Gospel of Thomas indicate that Jesus' teachings discussed this concept of merging with the divine. Here is one from Thomas:

Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

Well here is a judge who would should warm the hearts of some of the posters on this thread.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... tid=pm_pop

moda0306 wrote:

RuralEngineer wrote: I'm pro legalization. It would be the height of hypocrisy to support capital punishment for drug traffickers when I think the laws banning the product are foolish. However, many of the people engaged in this activity are also violent murderers, deserving of death.  The simple mules should receive a light sentence until legalization.

In general I support capital punishment for violent crimes and sexual crimes against children.

What violent crimes short of murder do you support capital punishment for?

When I said violent crimes, I was actually referring to those that lead to the death of the victim.  So basically, murder.  There have been cases of slavery/imprisonment and torture that have been particularly heinous where the victim did not die but that they were mutilated such that I would gladly see the perpetrator be executed.

doodle wrote:

RuralEngineer wrote: I'm pro legalization. It would be the height of hypocrisy to support capital punishment for drug traffickers when I think the laws banning the product are foolish. However, many of the people engaged in this activity are also violent murderers, deserving of death.  The simple mules should receive a light sentence until legalization.

In general I support capital punishment for violent crimes and sexual crimes against children.

Does it matter the circumstances that led to the murder? Let's say the person had a tumor growing on their brain that caused them to have violent outbreaks. Are they still guilty in that circumstance, or are they a victim of this tumorous growth? Its a little complicated I think. I'm more prone to look at murderers and rapists as sick individuals, not evil people. I do not condone their actions, but I can't condemn them as individuals either as I see them as circumstantial victims in their own right.

I really like listening to Carl Jungs opinions on these topics. Here are some quotes worth pondering:

It all depends on how we look at things, and not how they are in themselves.

It is a fact that cannot be denied: the wickedness of others becomes our own wickedness because it kindles something evil in our own hearts.

Understanding does not cure evil, but it is a definite help, inasmuch as one can cope with a comprehensible darkness.

People tend to believe evil is something external to them – yet it is a projection of the shadow onto others. As one who projects the principle for absolute and unresolvable evil onto others – it is to the degree that one condemns others and finds evil in others, that one is unconscious of the same thing within oneself, or the potential of that within oneself. It is a projection of one’s own shadow.

The healthy man does not torture others - generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.

I can see the moral argument for not executing people who committed crimes because they were sick.  If the crime was committed because of an illness that is actually curable, a tumor for example, then I'm even open to letting them go after they are cured.  However, if the disease is incurable, a debilitating mental illness for example, I don't see the point in keeping them around.  When my dog gets rabies I don't put it in a cage and keep it around until it expires, I put it down for my safety and that of my family.

Not all murderers and rapists have mental illness.  Sometimes bad people are just animals that need to be expunged from society. 

Not all murderers and rapists have mental illness.  Sometimes bad people are just animals that need to be expunged from society. 

My perspective is that if you murder and rape you are the perfect example of a person with a mental illness. A mentally healthy individual in my opinion does not engage in such behavior. Whether they should be expunged or not is another topic I guess...I'm generally opposed to it for many of the reasons MT cited, but I don't have exceptionally strong feelings on the matter. I'm more concerned with where this behavior comes from and why it emerges in some individuals than with the question of what to do once it does. I find the act of judging someone as "evil" a highly unscientific stance to take in the 21st century. There must be a causative reason for these behaviors...

doodle wrote:

Not all murderers and rapists have mental illness.  Sometimes bad people are just animals that need to be expunged from society.

My perspective is that if you murder and rape you are the perfect example of a person with a mental illness. A mentally healthy individual in my opinion does not engage in such behavior. Whether they should be expunged or not is another topic I guess...I'm generally opposed to it for many of the reasons MT cited, but I don't have exceptionally strong feelings on the matter. I'm more concerned with where this behavior comes from and why it emerges in some individuals than with the question of what to do once it does. I find the act of judging someone as "evil" a highly unscientific stance to take in the 21st century. There must be a causative reason for these behaviors...

For someone who has hinted at a lack of religious belief you have an almost Calvinist approach to this subject. The only real difference being that you are replacing Calvin's divine predestination with his elect and damned, with a modern psychological construct. Either way though you end up repudiating free will.

Science as I understand it however has not embraced this point of view. Some people really are evil by choice.