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

[GE Morton]

Here's a stat I happened across:

There are about 6 million adult males in the penal system. About 16% are psychopaths (about 1 million). This equates to about 93% of all adult male psychopaths being in jail, prison, parole or probation. One of the hallmarks of psychopathy is the resistance to rehabilitation.

So, what is the alternative to incarceration for this substantial minority of the prison population?

Easy one. Mental institutions. The "de-institutionalization" movement beginning in the '50s --- another hare-brained idea of leftish social scientists --- resulted in closure of dozens of hospitals and released 500,000 patients to the streets, many of whom ended up in jail.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... es/2013-10

That's incarceration in a different location. Fully functioning criminal psychopaths don't belong in mental institutions with the non-functioning.

I agree. However, psychopathy and "sociopathy" are not really mental illnesses. Those terms are more judgmental than medical.

[Pattern-chaser]

I similarly cannot support capital punishment, though on practical, not moral grounds.

Likewise. There are too many innocent people convicted for us to be at ease with such an irreversible punishment. First let's guarantee that no innocent people are convicted; then, perhaps, we can safely re-consider capital punishment...?

Yes, let's! How though?

That's the $64000 question, isn't it? And that is my point. Until and unless we can be confident that the prisoner we choose to execute is guilty, how could we implement such a terrible and irreversible sentence?

[Pattern-chaser]

I similarly cannot support capital punishment, though on practical, not moral grounds.

Likewise. There are too many innocent people convicted for us to be at ease with such an irreversible punishment. First let's guarantee that no innocent people are convicted; then, perhaps, we can safely re-consider capital punishment...?

Yes, let's! How though?

Should we feed all the evidence and arguments into a supercomputer for an objective, flawless techno-judgment, or continue to rely on error-prone humans?

Error-prone humans for me, every time. Do we really think that AIs could offer error-free judgement(s)? Their objectivity and flawlessness depends on the way it is programmed, maybe by humans, maybe reprogrammed by itself. I'll opt for the 'devil we know'.

[Pattern-chaser]

I similarly cannot support capital punishment, though on practical, not moral grounds.

Likewise. There are too many innocent people convicted for us to be at ease with such an irreversible punishment. First let's guarantee that no innocent people are convicted; then, perhaps, we can safely re-consider capital punishment...?

That's only one issue. Another is that capital punishment is unevenly distributed on racial grounds. Lastly, for truly heinous crimes, it's too lenient.

I think all criminal punishment is "unevenly distributed on racial grounds", in many countries. As to the latter, it depends on whether you punish for the purpose of revenge, or not.

[Robert66]

I similarly cannot support capital punishment, though on practical, not moral grounds.

Likewise. There are too many innocent people convicted for us to be at ease with such an irreversible punishment. First let's guarantee that no innocent people are convicted; then, perhaps, we can safely re-consider capital punishment...?

Yes, let's! How though?

Should we feed all the evidence and arguments into a supercomputer for an objective, flawless techno-judgment, or continue to rely on error-prone humans?

Error-prone humans for me, every time. Do we really think that AIs could offer error-free judgement(s)? Their objectivity and flawlessness depends on the way it is programmed, maybe by humans, maybe reprogrammed by itself. I'll opt for the 'devil we know'.

Sounds to me as though you trust an error-prone system. In that case I agree with you.

[Pattern-chaser]

Likewise. There are too many innocent people convicted for us to be at ease with such an irreversible punishment. First let's guarantee that no innocent people are convicted; then, perhaps, we can safely re-consider capital punishment...?

Yes, let's! How though?

Should we feed all the evidence and arguments into a supercomputer for an objective, flawless techno-judgment, or continue to rely on error-prone humans?

Error-prone humans for me, every time. Do we really think that AIs could offer error-free judgement(s)? Their objectivity and flawlessness depends on the way it is programmed, maybe by humans, maybe reprogrammed by itself. I'll opt for the 'devil we know'.

Sounds to me as though you trust an error-prone system. In that case I agree with you.

No, I'm choosing between 2 undesirable choices. Humans make mistakes, but we have much past experience of the sort of mistakes that are made. In the case of AIs, there is no telling what sort of errors they might make. As to the latter, I assume it is humans identifying the error(s), not the AIs, which might think their conclusions correct, according to the criteria they have adopted.

[Robert66]

OK so you choose an error-prone therefore untrustworthy system?

[GE Morton]

OK so you choose an error-prone therefore untrustworthy system?

You have no choice, if all the available options are error-prone.

[Robert66]

OK so you choose an error-prone therefore untrustworthy system?

You have no choice, if all the available options are error-prone.

Elsewhere Pattern-chaser has stated that a justice system which convicts innocent people is untrustworthy. I disagree.

[GE Morton]

OK so you choose an error-prone therefore untrustworthy system?

You have no choice, if all the available options are error-prone.

Elsewhere Pattern-chaser has stated that a justice system which convicts innocent people is untrustworthy. I disagree.

Or acquits guilty ones, which also occurs from time to time. Whether the system is trustworthy depends on how reliable the system must be before you trust it. If the standard is "Never fails," then it is not trustworthy. If "Usually gets it right," then it is. The first, of course, is impractical.

[Pattern-chaser]

OK so you choose an error-prone therefore untrustworthy system?

You have no choice, if all the available options are error-prone.

Thank you for saving me the trouble of posting that. I didn't say so explicitly because I thought it was obvious...

[Pattern-chaser]

Elsewhere Pattern-chaser has stated that a justice system which convicts innocent people is untrustworthy. I disagree.

I think you are applying binary thinking where a more nuanced approach might prove more constructive and useful. My statements were never intended to be interpreted in such a binary fashion, in such a nuanced subject. The threshold between 'trustworthy' and 'untrustworthy' is a grey area, a spectrum, if you will, and not an 'if you're not with us, you're against us' playground argument.

[Robert66]

Elsewhere Pattern-chaser has stated that a justice system which convicts innocent people is untrustworthy. I disagree.

I think you are applying binary thinking where a more nuanced approach might prove more constructive and useful. My statements were never intended to be interpreted in such a binary fashion, in such a nuanced subject. The threshold between 'trustworthy' and 'untrustworthy' is a grey area, a spectrum, if you will, and not an 'if you're not with us, you're against us' playground argument.

If you wished to avoid a "binary" interpretation, why state 'A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy'?

[Sculptor1]

Where justice systems exist, the natural and sensible default position is to consider them as untrustworthy.
And anyone who has had the misfortune to have direct contact even with the world's most "trusted" systems will know that the only way to get on with them is to treat them with utter caution.
"Never say anything to the police".

The police are not there to deliver justice, but to get a collar. It does not matter your guilt or innocence. You will find yourself in the dock for one reason only; if they think they can convict.
If you are poor, you will have to struggle with defence, and have a very small chance to keep your liberty.
If you are rich then you have a good chance to get off even if guilty.

[Pattern-chaser]

Elsewhere Pattern-chaser has stated that a justice system which convicts innocent people is untrustworthy. I disagree.

I think you are applying binary thinking where a more nuanced approach might prove more constructive and useful. My statements were never intended to be interpreted in such a binary fashion, in such a nuanced subject. The threshold between 'trustworthy' and 'untrustworthy' is a grey area, a spectrum, if you will, and not an 'if you're not with us, you're against us' playground argument.

If you wished to avoid a "binary" interpretation, why state 'A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy'?

I was using my language, as I thought, in a non-binary fashion. But we are so used to binary thinking, we tend to interpret what is written in that light. I apologise for my lack of clarity.