Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Stop living in fairy tale land. Your perceptions aren't based on anything realistic.
Saying 'things always were a certain way, so obviously they'll always be that way' is stupid and completely hopeless. Only through hope can we reach progress and positive change. We can change humanity; there is nothing indicating we can't, considering you love the 'indication' game.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Or the fact that it's easy, almost anyone can do it, and can get away with it. See what I did there? I cut out the middleman(external factors), and placed the responsibility on the person!
Ah, yes, but glorification of easy cash over hard work is yet another societal value people might interpret or subscribe to, see? Being that this is a matter of morality (which is unnatural), there must be some form of environmental influence attached to it. See? Everything can be traced to external factors.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Except we aren't stooping to his standards. He committed premeditated murder. We gave him a trial. He lost under the legal rules of capital murder. So it's a legal kill. And how dare someone who commits a capital murder NOT forfeit his life?
Ignoring what it will potentially result in (favoritism, false condemnations, the elimination of rehabilitation possibilities), then how dare we, as a society, punish an individual with the exact same thing he did? We do not degenerate to the basic, primal feelings of anger; we maintain the higher moralistic ground and enforce our beliefs regarding life, no matter whose it is.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And our ethical standards and values state that a murderer shouldn't be able to keep his life.
No, we do not revel in killing or violence. Thus, we do not punish a person in that manner.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No it's not. Because white collar crimes goes against this "simple logic". The "logic" is people do whatever is easy and they know they can get away with.
Do you think an individual would prefer to lead a life that potentially leads to violence and punishment and is harmful, or a legitimate life? If it's the former, then there must have been something to cause such bleak hopelessness and attraction towards violence.
I didn't say that the survival instinct or poverty were the only causes of crime, but they're definitely the leading causes of it.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, it's NOT the same thing. You don't overdose on beer. You die from hard drugs, so it's NOT the same thing.
But you can die from excessive abuse of 'heavy' alcohol. I was likening marijuana to beer and hard drugs to more heavily alcoholic drinks.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And where is this "majority" coming from? It's funny, so people are now responsible in utilizing drugs and alcohol, but when they do something evil, it's because of outside influences.
Out of the millions who drink alcohol, smoke, and do drugs, how many do you think become life-threatening addicts? Here's a hint: the only reason why that industry is thriving is because the majority of people are capable of acting with restraint and do not abuse things excessively.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And btw, heroin leads to MORE heroin, which leads to an addiction, which leads to death. Welcome to the reality of hard drugs. Here's that word again, rehabilitation. Lets not punish the person for using drugs which are illegal, lets just rehabilitate them! People that abuse drugs end up committing other, more severe crimes.
1. Careful, measured usage of heroin (which must be the prominent form of its utilization, given the fact that many people still do it, with the majority not dying) does not lead to addictions and deathd.
2. No drug should be illegal. No one has the right to tell you what to do with your body or what is moral for you; if an addiction is threatening your life and thus potentially other people's life, then the best course of action is to rehabilitate the individual. It's a medical problem, not a criminal one.
3. We do not illegalize things that set a 'precedent'. Freedom is more important than safety and conformity.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Rofl. Right, this is the last liberal rhetoric I haven't heard which I was waiting for. It's their life? Their choice? So it's their choice to lead their own lives, but when they take someone else's life, it's society's fault. You're racking up the double standards here. We have a right to tell people how to live their lives. It's called laws. It's called the constitution. And those people forfeit their lives when they take someone else's.
Someone's life belongs only to themselves; thus, if they choose to destroy themselves without compensating for their mistakes or so-called 'moral failings', then it is their choice. I don't think that drug addictions are caused necessarily only by drugs. People who degenerate to these things often have it collide with differing societal influences, such as violence, desperation, and a desire for escape.
When somebody takes someone's life, then they ultimately choose to do. However, why do they choose to do so? First of all, it is an immediate response to an external factor. Outside of that, an individuals' whose psyche is formed in a way that causes them to become violent, explosive individuals has clearly had very 'negative' environmental influences.
Personal choice is important, but we have a degree of control over socioeconomic factors, which play a vital role in every action. We should exercise this in order to prevent these sorts of actions from coming to pass.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Oh right. Lets switch to socialism/capitalism. That worked wonders for the Soviet Union.
I did not say we should switch over to communism, did I? But greed and financially-oriented criminality is a sort of response to excessive capitalism and materialism. Somebody who grows up in a society that does not glorify the easy and indulgence in material rewards will not turn out to be greedy.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Ah right. When it's not a societal factor, it's a misinterpretation. Lets just keep the blame game going. There's NO way you don't believe people are inherently good because this is what you're basically saying. Personal choice comes first. Psychology and societal factors come after.
I don't focus on why some people do good because that is irrelevant. Even in that case, individuals who become good do so as a method of response; they interpret things in a different, more supposedly positive manner, and their psyche forms in a way that leads them away from violence and greed. But that is pointless.
An individual who commits a murder chooses to so. That much is obvious. However, a deeper and more important questions is "why did they choose to do so?" There are multiple layers behind that question. When balancing between psychology and socioeconomic factors versus personal choice, every situation must be measured on its own merit. However, the former always has a very important role.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Justice is necessary. Capital Punishment is justice for the victim. You can claim that "it won't bring anyone back", but you'll be hard pressed to find a victim's family that doesn't want the killer dead.
Then do we degenerate to petty feelings of revenge and anger in an attempt to get a degree of emotional gratification? And that is not a morally wrong thing to do?
And what about the killer's families? Let's take two circumstances:
1. Let's say somebody killed your son.
2. Let's say your son killed somebody and he is going to be executed.
In which case do you think the emotional tragedy of the families is greater?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, it's based on personal choices with societal factors maybe playing a small role. Societal factors are NOT substituted for personal choice.
But by claiming socioeconomic factors are irrelevant and should never be taken into consideration, then you pave the way for never changing our society into betterment. Why? Because people who are screwed over by it and turn into violence as a result of this are clearly personally responsible.
We must judge things on balance. By understanding the social injustices of our system and the potential ramifications of them, we can create a better functioning and more perfect society.
Nemesis, will you take it from here? I'm gonna go to sleep now.
Btw, to answer Darth Sexy's problem with white-collar criminals:
'Once inside a company, psychopaths can be hard to excise. Babiak tells of a salesperson and psychopath -- call him John -- who was performing badly but not suffering for it. John was managing his boss -- flattering him, taking him out for drinks, flying to his side when he was in trouble. In return, his boss covered for him by hiding John's poor performance. The arrangement lasted until John's boss was moved. When his replacement called John to task for his abysmal sales numbers, John was a step ahead.
He'd already gone to the company president with a set of facts he used to argue that his new boss, and not he, should be fired. But he made a crucial mistake. "It was actually stolen data," Babiak says. "The only way [John] could have obtained it would be for him to have gone into a file into which no one was supposed to go. That seemed to be enough, and he was fired rather than the boss. Even so, in the end, he walked out with a company car, a bag of money, and a good reference."
"A lot of white-collar criminals are psychopaths," says Bob Hare. "But they flourish because the characteristics that define the disorder are actually valued. When they get caught, what happens? A slap on the wrist, a six-month ban from trading, and don't give us the $100 million back. I've always looked at white-collar crime as being as bad or worse than some of the physically violent crimes that are committed."
http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html
So apparently their just naturally inclined that way, being psycho's and all (which is apparently something you're born with). This seems so fly in the face of Crimsons arguments.
Also, 22% of criminals are legitimately psychopaths and 50% of violent crimes can be attributed to them.
Edit: and just for a taste of what psychopaths are like
'"I said, 'Here's a scene that you can use,' " Hare says. " 'You're walking down a street and there's an accident. A car has hit a child in the crosswalk. A crowd of people gather round. You walk up, the child's lying on the ground and there's blood running all over the place. You get a little blood on your shoes and you look down and say, "Oh shit." You look over at the child, kind of interested, but you're not repelled or horrified. You're just interested. Then you look at the mother, and you're really fascinated by the mother, who's emoting, crying out, doing all these different things. After a few minutes you turn away and go back to your house. You go into the bathroom and practice mimicking the facial expressions of the mother.' " He then pauses and says, "That's the psychopath: somebody who doesn't understand what's going on emotionally, but understands that something important has happened."
Psychopathy is one of my interests.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penaltyAlso:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-rowhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/06/AR2007070602051.html
(This one is just one case)That these things happen suggest that the Death Penalty is like a loose cannon: it hurts both the innocent and the guilty. Imagine if these cases hadn't had the necessarily long and drawn out (read: expensive) appeals process! There would be 130 innocent men dead. That isn't justice.
First, the quote is "better let 10 guilty people go than convict 1 innocent man". And yes, 130 innocents were released. I haven't read after the 1st site but does it say WHEN they were released? Was it when we came upon new technology? It's easy to sit back and criticize RH. And yes, 130 being dead would have been a miscarriage of justice. You know what IS justice? The fact that over a thousand people have been convicted since 1976 alone. That's justice to g-d knows how many families.
Originally posted by Nephthys
So apparently their just naturally inclined that way, being psycho's and all (which is apparently something you're born with). This seems so fly in the face of Crimsons arguments.
Sociopathy and similar mental disorders can come into play as a result of societal factors, like violence and abuse, or can be traced to mental illnesses. In either case, 'personal responsibility' in its entirety cannot be seen exclusively.
Greed and opportunism, when they occur within the wealthy, are not natural traits. It's generated by society as a method of reaction to multiple factors.
The poor might become opportunistic as a result of the survival instinct; their fundamental impulse is to survive, and criminality gives a way of doing so.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]Saying 'things always were a certain way, so obviously they'll always be that way' is stupid and completely hopeless. Only through hope can we reach progress and positive change. We can change humanity; there is nothing indicating we can't, considering you love the 'indication' game.
Ah, yes, but glorification of easy cash over hard work is yet another societal value people might interpret or subscribe to, see? Being that this is a matter of morality (which is unnatural), there must be some form of environmental influence attached to it. See? Everything can be traced to external factors.
Ignoring what it will potentially result in (favoritism, false condemnations, the elimination of rehabilitation possibilities), then how dare we, as a society, punish an individual with the exact same thing he did? We do not degenerate to the basic, primal feelings of anger; we maintain the higher moralistic ground and enforce our beliefs regarding life, no matter whose it is.
No, we do not revel in killing or violence. Thus, we do not punish a person in that manner.
Do you think an individual would prefer to lead a life that potentially leads to violence and punishment and is harmful, or a legitimate life? If it's the former, then there must have been something to cause such bleak hopelessness and attraction towards violence.
I didn't say that the survival instinct or poverty were the only causes of crime, but they're definitely the leading causes of it.
But you can die from excessive abuse of 'heavy' alcohol. I was likening marijuana to beer and hard drugs to more heavily alcoholic drinks.
Out of the millions who drink alcohol, smoke, and do drugs, how many do you think become life-threatening addicts? Here's a hint: the only reason why that industry is thriving is because the majority of people are capable of acting with restraint and do not abuse things excessively.
1. Careful, measured usage of heroin (which must be the prominent form of its utilization, given the fact that many people still do it, with the majority not dying) does not lead to addictions and deathd.
2. No drug should be illegal. No one has the right to tell you what to do with your body or what is moral for you; if an addiction is threatening your life and thus potentially other people's life, then the best course of action is to rehabilitate the individual. It's a medical problem, not a criminal one.
3. We do not illegalize things that set a 'precedent'. Freedom is more important than safety and conformity.
Someone's life belongs only to themselves; thus, if they choose to destroy themselves without compensating for their mistakes or so-called 'moral failings', then it is their choice. I don't think that drug addictions are caused necessarily only by drugs. People who degenerate to these things often have it collide with differing societal influences, such as violence, desperation, and a desire for escape.
When somebody takes someone's life, then they ultimately choose to do. However, why do they choose to do so? First of all, it is an immediate response to an external factor. Outside of that, an individuals' whose psyche is formed in a way that causes them to become violent, explosive individuals has clearly had very 'negative' environmental influences.
Personal choice is important, but we have a degree of control over socioeconomic factors, which play a vital role in every action. We should exercise this in order to prevent these sorts of actions from coming to pass.
I did not say we should switch over to communism, did I? But greed and financially-oriented criminality is a sort of response to excessive capitalism and materialism. Somebody who grows up in a society that does not glorify the easy and indulgence in material rewards will not turn out to be greedy.
An individual who commits a murder chooses to so. That much is obvious. However, a deeper and more important questions is "why did they choose to do so?" There are multiple layers behind that question. When balancing between psychology and socioeconomic factors versus personal choice, every situation must be measured on its own merit. However, the former always has a very important role.
Then do we degenerate to petty feelings of revenge and anger in an attempt to get a degree of emotional gratification? And that is not a morally wrong thing to do?
And what about the killer's families? Let's take two circumstances:
1. Let's say somebody killed your son.
2. Let's say your son killed somebody and he is going to be executed.
In which case do you think the emotional tragedy of the families is greater? [/quote]
How are they two different circumstances? The emotional tragedy is greater in 1, which is why the family wants 2 to happen. You're proving my point.
But by claiming socioeconomic factors are irrelevant and should never be taken into consideration, then you pave the way for never changing our society into betterment. Why? Because people who are screwed over by it and turn into violence as a result of this are clearly personally responsible.
We must judge things on balance. By understanding the social injustices of our system and the potential ramifications of them, we can create a better functioning and more perfect society.
Sociopathy and similar mental disorders can come into play as a result of societal factors, like violence and abuse, or can be traced to mental illnesses. In either case, 'personal responsibility' in its entirety cannot be seen exclusively.
Dr Robert Hare seems to disagree, and he's the world's leading authority on psychopath's. He says that they simply have brains that are wired differently to normal people. This is in turn backed up by a recent study which speculates that Psychopath's are part of evolution (or something. I'm tired), as the people built who can do the things other's can't
Also, merely stating something doesn't make you right.
Greed and opportunism, when they occur within the wealthy, are not natural traits. It's generated by society as a method of reaction to multiple factors.The poor might become opportunistic as a result of the survival instinct; their fundamental impulse is to survive, and criminality gives a way of doing so.
Again, you're just stating.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Sociopathy and similar mental disorders can come into play as a result of societal factors, like violence and abuse, or can be traced to mental illnesses. In either case, 'personal responsibility' in its entirety cannot be seen exclusively.Greed and opportunism, when they occur within the wealthy, are not natural traits. It's generated by society as a method of reaction to multiple factors.
The poor might become opportunistic as a result of the survival instinct; their fundamental impulse is to survive, and criminality gives a way of doing so.
No, it's generated by poor moral values and the desire to get something for doing nothing. Stop blaming society for individual responsibility.
'Even in his particular area, Hare is unfailingly circumspect. Asked if he thinks there will ever be a cure for psychopathy -- a drug, an operation -- Hare steps back and examines the question. "The psychopath will say 'A cure for what?' I don't feel comfortable calling it a disease. Much of their behaviour, even the neurobiological patterns we observe, could be because they're using different strategies to get around the world. These strategies don't have to involve faulty wiring, just different wiring."
Are these people qualitatively different from us? "I would think yes," says Hare. "Do they form a discrete taxon or category? I would say probably -- the evidence is suggesting that. But does this mean that's because they have a broken motor? I don't know. It could be a natural variation." True saints, completely selfless individuals, are rare and unnatural too, he points out, but we don't talk about their being diseased. '