Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If I am understanding correctly (which is never a safe assumption), that means your question is as follows: For someone who steals my identity and ruins my credit score, what punishment seems logical to me?

My answer is that I don't think any punishment for anything would have a logical value one way or other other, so the answer is null or n/a.

Logical inferences have values of logical (a.k.a. valid) or illogical (a.k.a. invalid).

Propositions have values of true (a.k.a. correct or right) versus false (a.k.a. incorrect or wrong).

Events and behaviors--such as spanking a person on their butt--have neither. Events and behaviors are neither true nor false. Events and behaviors are neither logically valid or logically invalid.

Ok, that's where we differ.

I am not sure what you mean. Where specifically is where we differ? Is there a specific sentence from the above post with which you disagree (or most disagree)? Which sentence(s) specifically in the above post do you think are untrue?

Legalizing drugs will probably reduce the power of the cartels. (Although there are things that speak against.)
But it will also increase the consumption, and therefor it will increase the number of people who lose control.

What evidence do you have for the claim that criminalization decreases the criminalized activity? Please note, I'm not saying it is a false claim (or a true claim), but rather I am just asking what your evidence is. For instance, how much did alcohol consumption decrease during prohibition?

A better reading of the Wikipedia page you provided, shows the following data:

Federal, 225,000 inmates, 7.90% (17,775) in for violent crime
State, 1,316,000, 52.40% (689,584) in for violent crime
Local, 785,556, 21.60% (169,680) in for violent crime
Total 2,326,556, 37.7% (877,039) in for violent crime

Thus, that gives us the answer for #1 and #2 of my requested stats:

1. percentage of inmates in USA who are charged or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. violent offenders)

2. percentage of inmates in the USA who are not charge with or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. non-violent offenders)

3. percentage of inmates who are "victimizers", according to your definition of victimization, but not violent (i.e. non-violent victimizers)

In theory, #1 and #2 need to equal 100%, and #3 needs to be less than #2 since #3 is a subset of #2.

#1 (violent offenders) is 37.7%.

#2 (non-violent offenders) is 62.3%

Do you know what #3 is?

We know it must be lower than #2 since it is a subset of #2.

You can derive that from the figures I gave earlier: "victimizers" comprise all violent offenders, all property offenders, and (perhaps) half of "public order" offenders. So about 65% of incarcerated persons are "victimizers."

Since #1 plus #3 would equal the alleged 65% of total victimizers (both violent and non-violent), then that would mean #3 would must equal 27.3%.

So it looks like we have our answers my to three requested states:

1. percentage of inmates in USA who are charged or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. violent offenders): 37.7%

2. percentage of inmates in the USA who are not charge with or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. non-violent offenders): 62.3%

3. percentage of inmates who are "victimizers", according to your definition of victimization, but not violent (i.e. non-violent victimizers) 27.3%


Interesting. Thank you for your help with this!

I don't think I've ever met a person, including elected officials themselves, who doesn't think money (most notably in the form of campaign contributions) has way too much influence in the political system in the USA. I mean that with utmost respect. I am eager to learn about new different viewpoints.

I think its influence is nil.

On a scale of 0-10, 10 being the most, to what degree do you think the average elected member of Congress is influenced by special interests through any financial mechanism such as but not limited to paid lobbying, campaign contributions, kickbacks, or bribes?

Answered above [i.e. nil].

Nonetheless, I believe money plays a huge role in determining who gets elected and who gets excluded from being elected.

Yes, it does have a huge role there.

I am glad that you are agreeing with me, but it also seems you are contradicting yourself.

Please note, in the two above quoted 0-10 questions, I did not ask for a binary black-and-white answer (or green-and-red), but allowed for an answer of of 4, 5, or 6 for example. However, you had written nil.

Nonetheless, I agree that it is not nil; it is huge.

I believe the billions of dollars collectively spent by companies like Facebook, Amazon, Comcast, and Lockheed Martin on lobbying is not wasted; I believe they are getting their money's worth.

Did the donors who contributed lavishly to the Trump campaign in the last US presidential election get their money's worth?

Especially considering so many big donors play both sides by donating heavily to both sides of the well-funded duopoly (i.e. to both the Democrat Party and Republican Party), my bet is that the answer is generally yes, they did get their money's worth, such as in terms of the swamp not being cleared.

Due to the logical law of the excluded middle, it is necessarily the case that a given person either is (1) significantly abnormally psychologically more likely to commit violence or non-defensive victimization or is (2) not abnormally psychologically more likely to commit violence or non-defensive victimization.

As I said before the concept of "psychological abnormality" is too nebulous to have any analytical value.

The Law of the Excluded Middle is logically undeniable.

One thing I believe that you and I both want is to protect people from non-defensive violence and victimization.

Prisons are not needed for that.

What are your alternatives?

Alternatives for what?

Excluding everyone who is [...] significantly more likely to commit non-defensive violence or non-defensive victimization, who do you want to be put in prison?

As for who should be imprisoned other than "victimizers" --- no one.

It seems we agree. My answer is also no one.

I hope many offenders re-offend, such as people in jail for marijuana possession. I hope they get out and smoke a joint to celebrate their release. Re-offense is often a good thing, in my opinion, since so many good things are illegal.

For example, Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times. I am glad it was 29 rather than 1. I am glad he re-offended, over and over. Recidivism is often a very good thing.

Arnold Abbott is another example of someone I am glad repeatedly re-offended.

I take your meaning to be that you would like to be made aware of unjust laws, but is it reasonable to expect your fellow citizens to go to barbaric American prisons to highlight these injustices for you?

I am not sure what the context of the word expect is in the question. Namely, I'm not sure if you mean it in the context of desire or prediction. For instance, if I catch a stomach bug and everyone else I know who has had the same bug vomited, I would then expect to soon vomit myself, but I presumably wouldn't want or intentionally help that to happen per se.

I meant that it seems somewhat cruel for those who are imprisoned to be imprisoned just so that you can see the injustice of the law(s) that put them there.

I agree that it would be and is cruel, but I am not suggesting that or encouraging that.

Perhaps, I gave the false implication that I hope the re-offenders get caught and re-victimized or that I thought their re-victimization by the government would be a good thing, neither of which is the case. For example, I am not saying it's a good thing that the police and government re-victimized Martin Luther King by arresting him 29 times. Rather, I am saying it's a good thing Martin Luther King continued to engage in the criminal behavior, regardless of whether he was caught and arrested for it or hypothetically had gotten away with committing the crime without getting arrested by the victimizers.

I am glad Arnold Abbott continued to illegally feed homeless people, not because he got re-arrested for it. In other words, the re-arrest is not the good thing per se, but rather what I like to see is the re-offense itself, such as the continuing to illegally feed the homeless, regardless of whether it leads to re-arrest or not.

You know, as we all do, that some of the laws of your country are unjust. But surely your (our) duty is to those fellow citizens who are unjustly imprisoned, not just to use their incarceration as a reminder that we really ought to do something.... In such an instance the injustice is that these people are imprisoned!

Technically, I don't agree with the concept of justice as even being a meaningful concept, my ideas about which I wrote a book titled Justice. Nonetheless, I essentially agree, especially in terms of passionate sympathy for the many victims of non-defensive imprisonment. I deeply appreciate--and share--your expression of that sympathy.

[Sculptor1]

The biggest question about prisons is to ask what exactly are their fucntions and do they achieve those functions.

1. Deterence to teach criminal forebearance.
2. Encarceration to protect the public.
3, Vengeance to satify victims
4. Correctional to punish the criminals.
5. Rehabilitation.

I gave my answer to that in a previous post:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=346&start=570#p380687

My view is that 5 is the most important but least persued.

Quite the contrary. It is pursued almost universally in this country, at great expense. And it is largely ineffective and, indeed, counterproductive.

Where is "this country"?

[GE Morton]

Yes, it does have a huge role there.

I am glad that you are agreeing with me, but it also seems you are contradicting yourself.

Did you notice the two follow-ups to my post? There is no contradiction. I answered "nil" to a question about influence. I agreed that it has a large role. Those are not equivalent and the latter does not imply the former.

Due to the logical law of the excluded middle, it is necessarily the case that a given person either is (1) significantly abnormally psychologically more likely to commit violence or non-defensive victimization or is (2) not abnormally psychologically more likely to commit violence or non-defensive victimization.

As I said before the concept of "psychological abnormality" is too nebulous to have any analytical value.

The Law of the Excluded Middle is logically undeniable.

Sure it is. But since "abnormally psychologically" is undefined the truth values of both disjuncts are indeterminate.

Technically, I don't agree with the concept of justice as even being a meaningful concept . . .

Well, that is a provocative assertion. What do you find problematic about it?

[GE Morton]

Where is "this country"?

USA.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I don't think I've ever met a person, including elected officials themselves, who doesn't think money (most notably in the form of campaign contributions) has way too much influence in the political system in the USA. I mean that with utmost respect. I am eager to learn about new different viewpoints.

I think its influence is nil.

On a scale of 0-10, 10 being the most, to what degree do you think the average elected member of Congress is influenced by special interests through any financial mechanism such as but not limited to paid lobbying, campaign contributions, kickbacks, or bribes?

Answered above [i.e. nil].

Nonetheless, I believe money plays a huge role in determining who gets elected and who gets excluded from being elected.

Yes, it does have a huge role there.

I am glad that you are agreeing with me, but it also seems you are contradicting yourself.

Did you notice the two follow-ups to my post? There is no contradiction. I answered "nil" to a question about influence. I agreed that it has a large role. Those are not equivalent and the latter does not imply the former.

Yes, I saw them, and I don't necessarily disagree.

As I use the terms, the following would be synonymous:

(1) Campaign contributions influences who gets elected

(2) Campaign contributions plays a role in who gets elected.

In another example, as I use the terms, the following would be synonymous:

(1) Money (in terms of campaign contributions, paid lobbying, kickbacks, industrial complexes, etc.) influences which laws and legislation get passed and how much pork is in those laws/legislation.

(2) Money (in terms of campaign contributions, paid lobbying, kickbacks, industrial complexes, etc.) plays a role in which laws get passed and how much pork is in those laws/legislation.


I can respect that you may use the terms differently such that in each case #1 is not synonymous with #2. But it still seems like a contradiction to go from nil (influence) to huge (role playing).

Nonetheless, it may be moot, since if I just replace the word influence with play a role, which I am happy to do, then we agree.

As I understand, we agree that money plays a huge role in who gets elected and what legislation gets passed.

Technically, I don't agree with the concept of justice as even being a meaningful concept . . .

Well, that is a provocative assertion. What do you find problematic about it?

Generally speaking, I consider the word justice to be a moralizing term on par with words like 'should' and 'ought'. As I briefly explain in my topic Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man, there are no shoulds or oughts in my philosophy. The words have no meaning to me.

In 2007, I wrote the article The Clarity of Amorality which also explains some of my thoughts on the matter.

However, more recently and more relevant to the word justice, I wrote a short book, Justice.

[Sculptor1]

Where is "this country"?

USA.

[Pattern-chaser]

The biggest question about prisons is to ask what exactly are their fucntions and do they achieve those functions.

1. Deterence to teach criminal forebearance.
2. Encarceration to protect the public.
3, Vengeance to satify victims
4. Correctional to punish the criminals.
5. Rehabilitation.

My view is that 5 is the most important but least pursued.

Quite the contrary. It is pursued almost universally in this country, at great expense. And it is largely ineffective and, indeed, counterproductive.
[/quote]

You actually suggest that the US takes steps toward rehabilitation? American jails offer vengeance and profit.

[Sculptor1]

You actually suggest that the US takes steps toward rehabilitation? American jails offer vengeance and profit.

No this is why I laughed (above)at the suggestion that the US had tried rehabiliation and failed.

American prisons are basically cages, literally. They are overcrowed with constant danger and inmates.
Prisons are geared for the profit of the private sector, which thrives on the continued oppression of, principally though not exclusively, black and hispanic poor. We've had several cases of white judges incercerating people on trumped up charges because they have shares in the prison owning businesses.

Rehabilitation works with the right attitude in not for profit prisons. Scandinavia have very low recidivism rates. I doubt America is mentally capable of such reforms.

[GE Morton]

Did you notice the two follow-ups to my post? There is no contradiction. I answered "nil" to a question about influence. I agreed that it has a large role. Those are not equivalent and the latter does not imply the former.

Yes, I saw them, and I don't necessarily disagree.

As I use the terms, the following would be synonymous:

(1) Campaign contributions influences who gets elected

(2) Campaign contributions plays a role in who gets elected.

Well, if those two propositions are synonymous, then the terms "influence" and "role" must be equivalent. They are not equivalent as normally understood. E.g., money (for advertising) has a role in whether I buy a certain new cell phone --- without advertising I'd know nothing about it and wouldn't be buying it. But it it is not a factor I consider when deciding which cell phone to buy, though the content of that advertising might influence me.

Similarly, money is required for a politician to disseminate his message; it has a role. But it is not a factor voters consider when deciding for whom to vote; they consider (among other things) the content of that message.

I take an influence, in this context, to mean a factor taken into consideration when making a decision.

As I understand, we agree that money plays a huge role in who gets elected and what legislation gets passed.

It has a role in who gets elected, since a candidate who spent no money would be unknown to most voters and thus unlikely to be elected. But assuming all candidates have spent enough money to make themselves and their positions known, it doesn't determine who gets elected. With regard to legislation, it has both a role and some influence. Lobbyists for all interests affected by some proposed legislation spend money to make their interests known; it has some role. It can also have, in the form of received or anticipated campaign contributions, some influence on how individual legislators vote on that proposal --- but only if the legislator is confident the vote will not alienate important constituencies.

Generally speaking, I consider the word justice to be a moralizing term on par with words like 'should' and 'ought'. As I briefly explain in my topic Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man, there are no shoulds or oughts in my philosophy. The words have no meaning to me.

Ah. You appear, then, to consider moral propositions to be non-cognitive, and moral philosophy to be a vacuous endeavor. Correct? If so, then considering "justice" to be a meaningless concept makes perfect sense; it is very much a moral concept.

In 2007, I wrote the article The Clarity of Amorality which also explains some of my thoughts on the matter.

I read the (very interesting) post, and will have more to say in that thread. But you might consider interpreting "should" and "ought," in moral contexts, in the instrumental sense, e.g., "If you want to drive a nail, you ought to get a hammer."

There is no "special," moral sense of those words.

[GE Morton]

The biggest question about prisons is to ask what exactly are their fucntions and do they achieve those functions.

1. Deterence to teach criminal forebearance.
2. Encarceration to protect the public.
3, Vengeance to satify victims
4. Correctional to punish the criminals.
5. Rehabilitation.

My view is that 5 is the most important but least pursued.

Quite the contrary. It is pursued almost universally in this country, at great expense. And it is largely ineffective and, indeed, counterproductive.

You actually suggest that the US takes steps toward rehabilitation?

I'm not sure whether you're replying to Sculptor or to me. Sculptor suggests investing more effort in rehabilitation; I don't. All states offer extensive rehabilitation programs of numerous types to inmates. They are largely ineffective in reducing recidivism. It is a Pollyanna fantasy.

American jails offer vengeance and profit.

Not many rehabilitation programs are offered in local jails. About half the inmates in jails are awaiting trial and have not been convicted, and those actually sentenced to jail time are serving terms too short for most rehabilitation programs. Rehab programs are offered in state and federal prisons.

[cosinus]

Legalizing drugs will probably reduce the power of the cartels. (Although there are things that speak against.)
But it will also increase the consumption, and therefor it will increase the number of people who lose control.

What evidence do you have for the claim that criminalization decreases the criminalized activity? Please note, I'm not saying it is a false claim (or a true claim), but rather I am just asking what your evidence is. For instance, how much did alcohol consumption decrease during prohibition?

That's simple math, there is a formula that applies to nearly every thing including politic.
It goes like this:

I = U / R and P = I * U
Where
I is the number of items per time
U is the Pressure
R is the Resistance
P is the energy lost per time or the misery caused per time unit.

In this particular case we have
R_1 Is the potential rate of suffering caused by addiction.
R_2 Is the potential rate of suffering caused by punishment.
U is the temptation
I is the actual number of people who take drugs
P is the is the over all misery caused by this system.

Let's say that R_1 and U are constant.
I and P cannot be directly influenced by policy.
So the only variable that we can use to make the world a better place is R_2 (The rate of artificial punishment.)

We want to set R_2 to a value so that the P gets as low as possible.

The complete Formula: P = U * U / (R_1 + R_2)
Now it's clear that as higher the artificial punishment R_2 is the lower is the misery caused.

With that knowledge given I can answer you actual question:

R is the potential, artificial punishment (criminalization)
U is the temptation to do the criminal activity
I is the number of criminals.

I = U / R
The wired thing is that the press is mostly interested in R and and then a bit in I (from statistics, which no one understands), but the actual misery caused P doesn't seam to mater at all.

[GE Morton]

American prisons are basically cages, literally. They are overcrowed with constant danger and inmates.

That is true of many prisons. They are dangerous because they are inhabited by dangerous people. But they nonetheless offer extensive rehabilitation programs.

Prisons are geared for the profit of the private sector, which thrives on the continued oppression of, principally though not exclusively, black and hispanic poor.

That is lefty nonsense. First, private prisons house a mere 8% of inmates. The remaining 92% are housed in prisons operated by governments.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2015/ ... H8QAvD_BwE

Nor are black and Hispanic inmates "oppressed," unless you consider the mere fact that they're incarcerated to constitute "oppression." Nor do those groups constitute a "disproportionate" fraction of the inmate population, as is constantly and loudly claimed by the Left. The ratio of minority inmates to their fraction of the population is irrelevant; what is relevant is their fraction of the persons who commit crimes. The homicide rate among blacks, for example, is 7 times higher than among whites:

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf
(p.11)

The rate of all violent crimes among blacks is 3 times as high as their fraction of the population:

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf

Hence they are "overrepresented" in prisons.

Rehabilitation works with the right attitude in not for profit prisons. Scandinavia have very low recidivism rates. I doubt America is mentally capable of such reforms.

No, it doesn't, not with any "attitude:"

" . . .the existing research, which now involves hundreds of evaluation studies, shows that rehabilitation programs reduce recidivism about 10 percentage points. Thus, if a control group had a recidivism rate of 55 percent, the treatment group's rate of re-offending would be 45 percent."

https://law.jrank.org/pages/1936/Rehabi ... -work.html

The current 6-year recidivism rate in the US is 79%. Rehab programs on average can reduce that to perhaps 69%.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/20 ... est-rates/

Comparisons of the US incarceration and recidivism rates with other countries is meaningless, because they have very different demographics and different reporting periods. Norway, for example, reports recidivism over 3 years; the US rate above is for 6 years.

[Sculptor1]

American prisons are basically cages, literally. They are overcrowed with constant danger and inmates.

That is true of many prisons. They are dangerous because they are inhabited by dangerous people. But they nonetheless offer extensive rehabilitation programs.

You simply do not appreciate the extent of the corruption in the US prison service.
It is simply not in the interests of a privately owned system to do effective rehab since that would reduce their repeat business

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm not sure whether you're replying to Sculptor or to me. Sculptor suggests investing more effort in rehabilitation; I don't. All states offer extensive rehabilitation programs of numerous types to inmates. They are largely ineffective in reducing recidivism. It is a Pollyanna fantasy.

Apologies, I wasn't clear. I was replying to you, and agreeing with Sculptor1. A little online research indicates that the US is one of the least successful in rehabilitation. Many US prisoners are there because of the War on Drugs, a political policy started by the Nixon administration, to prevent young activists - mostly black, but white too - from voting-in 'commies' or 'liberals'. US prisons shame a supposedly civilised country.

[GE Morton]

Many US prisoners are there because of the War on Drugs, a political policy started by the Nixon administration, to prevent young activists - mostly black, but white too - from voting-in 'commies' or 'liberals'. US prisons shame a supposedly civilised country.

I agree that the "War on Drugs" is misguided and oppressive undertaking, and should be abandoned. It follows from the broader, paternalistic view of the role of government in a free society, that citizens are children and government is their mommy and daddy, obliged to feed them, house them, educate them, keep them healthy, and intervene when they make poor choices.

But drug "criminals" make up only about 18% of US prison inmates (state and federal). Most of the rest are exactly where they belong.