Philosophy Discussion Forums

[/quote]

Families might have a strong influence, but participation is most usually voluntary. Except for fear of upsetting people and failing to comply to obligations, participation in family activities is purely voluntary.

[/quote]

Families are more coercive than we think. So not all things familial are voluntary. The modern nation-state and the family unit are very similar and based on the same principles. They are coercive and are at their most efficient when they issue threats.

GE Morton wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 11:07 pm You don't throw them back onto the street until they have made good the losses and damages inflicted upon the victims of their crimes, and have reimbursed the State for the costs it incurred investigating the crimes and locating, apprehending, trying, and housing the criminal.

This is possibly the most laughable thing I've seen all week.
Good luck with that! LOL.

GE Morton wrote:

Huh? Are you claiming that justice consists in, or is identical with, vengeance? Justice consists in securing to each person what he is due, by virtue of his actions. Securing justice for crime victims requires making good their losses and compensating for their injuries, as far as possible.

But it's impossible to allocate blame except within the context of tradition and precedent. There is no perfect scales of justice by which we may be sure that a man or woman is entirely to blame. You, nor the best judge and jury, are not God and so you cannot possibly know how good or how bad a person is. Better to be practical and look to the common aim to prevent crime by removing the causes of crime as best we may.

It's not possible to compensate for injuries except when money or goods can be returned. Crimes against the person cannot be compensated for as the traumas are ineradicable.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 25th, 2018, 11:19 am
This is possibly the most laughable thing I've seen all week.
Good luck with that! LOL.

It will require a protracted period of education. Dispelling deep rooted cultural myths always does.

Many famous politicians relatives, for example jimmy hoffa, were in jail. Did this change his politics . I am saying in bush manner Nooo. (Don't take this too serious). How can we argue about it.

Belindi wrote: ↑September 25th, 2018, 11:33 am
But it's impossible to allocate blame except within the context of tradition and precedent.

I'm sorry, Belindi, but you've lost me. Alfie enters a convenience store, points a .38 at the clerk, says, "Give me all the money in the till." The incident is recorded on the store's camera. What problems do you have in assigning blame? What have "tradition and precedent" to do with making that judgment?

There is no perfect scales of justice by which we may be sure that a man or woman is entirely to blame.

I'm not sure what would count as a "perfect scale of justice," but there is no room for doubt about who is to blame for the hypothetical robbery just described. No one but Alfie is making the demand, no one but Alfie is holding the gun or making the threat. Hence Alfie is, per the available evidence, which is conclusive, entirely to blame. Who else would you suggest is (partially?) to blame?

You, nor the best judge and jury, are not God and so you cannot possibly know how good or how bad a person is.

I'm not interested in how good or bad a person is (I don't even know what that means). I'm only interested in who committed the crime, and the evidence in this case is quite clear.

Better to be practical and look to the common aim to prevent crime by removing the causes of crime as best we may.

Crime does not have "causes." Nor does any other voluntary human behavior. Behaviors have motives --- objectives the agent hopes to attain by committing the act. Humans are not deterministic machines, driven to rote performance of pre-programmed actions by external forces over which they have no control.

It's not possible to compensate for injuries except when money or goods can be returned. Crimes against the person cannot be compensated for as the traumas are ineradicable.

Of course it is possible. It is done all the time in wrongful death and other tort lawsuits. Compensation is not always full, but whatever the victim or his survivors receive is better than nothing.

GE Morton wrote: ↑September 25th, 2018, 1:03 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 25th, 2018, 11:19 am
This is possibly the most laughable thing I've seen all week.
Good luck with that! LOL.

It will require a protracted period of education. Dispelling deep rooted cultural myths always does.

"IT"? WTF?
The use of 'it" usually follows a breakdown in confidence concerning what exactly it is.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 25th, 2018, 5:07 pm
"IT"? WTF?
The use of 'it" usually follows a breakdown in confidence concerning what exactly it is.

The "it" refers to the same thing as your pronoun "that" ("Good luck with that").

GE Morton wrote: ↑September 25th, 2018, 5:52 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 25th, 2018, 5:07 pm
"IT"? WTF?
The use of 'it" usually follows a breakdown in confidence concerning what exactly it is.

The "it" refers to the same thing as your pronoun "that" ("Good luck with that").

yes, and "that" is so risible you find it hard to bring yourself to defend it!
LOL

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 26th, 2018, 5:55 pm yes, and "that" is so risible you find it hard to bring yourself to defend it!
LOL

So far no defense is needed, since no attack has been made. Juvenile quips and ad hominems don't qualify.

Do you have some substantive criticism?

Morton -

Surely you cannot be saying there is no requirement for rehabilitation? If not you may as well execute everyone. Should it be a priority? I don’t think so. It is clear enough to me that some cases are a matter of unfortunate circumstance more than others.

I think I am with you on everything else you’ve stated.

Burning Ghost wrote:Surely you cannot be saying there is no requirement for rehabilitation? If not you may as well execute everyone...

As I read it, GE Morton is essentially saying "an eye for an eye". So he would presumably not advocate executing thieves because execution is not a means by which the thief is made to make good the losses inflicted by him. Once the debt has been paid, the criminal is free to go. The question of whether he has been rehabilitated is deemed to be irrelevant to the aim of repaying the debt:

GE Morton wrote:You don't throw them back onto the street until they have made good the losses and damages inflicted upon the victims of their crimes, and have reimbursed the State for the costs it incurred investigating the crimes and locating, apprehending, trying, and housing the criminal.

I don’t think he is saying anything like “an eye for an eye”? Your quote shows that.

I question whether paying their debt to society is enough to teach them to behave in a more civil manner. In many it probably is, but not in all. And in the group that it isn’t enough I’d go as far to say that some are beyond rehabilitation.

I think he is, and I think the words that I quoted demonstrate that. But I suppose we'll have to wait for morning to come in the USA to see which one of us is right. Quite exciting! We could have a small wager on it. Shall we say a guinea?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 27th, 2018, 5:54 am I think he is, and I think the words that I quoted demonstrate that. But I suppose we'll have to wait for morning to come in the USA to see which one of us is right. Quite exciting! We could have a small wager on it. Shall we say a guinea?

Sorry, I didn’t mean to say “I think”, I should’ve said “He clearly isn’t saying ‘an eye for an eye’”, or he’d have said something equivalent. I was just curious about the lack of rehabilitation being a good reason for people committing the same crimes over and over.