I Just Got Out of an Argument

[nate895]

I was just arguing with a person who believed that people shouldn't be punished for violating crimes, even under the non-aggression axiom. Her opinion was that it was "wrong" to punish people for the rest of their lives because they committed murder. I explained to her that those people took away another person's rights, and therefore they should be punished and not her therapy idea.

She even used the Constitution. I told her that I was a constitutionalist, and as such she could not beat with a Constitutional argument. Her argument basically seemed to rely on the emotional appeal that her brother was locked away for the rest of his life at age 18 for murdering someone. I bluntly told her that if he was convicted, that is where he should be. He made the conscious choice to murder someone, knowing full well the consequences. He denied them their rights, thereby forfeiting his.

How could someone possibly think that aggressive acts should go by unpunished save a few years of ridiculous therapy? The whole argument seemed absurd.

[Andrew-Austin]

There are some differing views on what justice/crime punishment will look like in a libertarian society. As it is now, the government just throws people behind bars for a long period of time (at our expensive) and calls it rehabilitation.

Perhaps it should be more along the lines of "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" though. Say if one steals 1000 dollars from another. The thief's 'punishment' should be to simply pay the 1000 back and cover the additional cost of court procedures, or if he/she cannot do so they will have to work for the afflicted.

In regards to punishing murder though, I have mixed feelings..



How could someone possibly think that aggressive acts should go by unpunished save a few years of ridiculous therapy?

Yes that does sound absurd. Every murderer would scoff at such a punishment and pretend to be crazy. The therapy would probably be more expensive and less effective. How does a therapist supposedly 'heal' a murderer anyway? Where do the afflicted family members fit in to this system of 'justice'? Their loved one gets struck down by a criminal, and in turn they have to pay for years of therapy for him via their tax dollars.

[Bman]

I was just arguing with a person who believed that people shouldn't be punished for violating crimes, even under the non-aggression axiom. Her opinion was that it was "wrong" to punish people for the rest of their lives because they committed murder. I explained to her that those people took away another person's rights, and therefore they should be punished and not her therapy idea.

She even used the Constitution. I told her that I was a constitutionalist, and as such she could not beat with a Constitutional argument. Her argument basically seemed to rely on the emotional appeal that her brother was locked away for the rest of his life at age 18 for murdering someone. I bluntly told her that if he was convicted, that is where he should be. He made the conscious choice to murder someone, knowing full well the consequences. He denied them their rights, thereby forfeiting his.

How could someone possibly think that aggressive acts should go by unpunished save a few years of ridiculous therapy? The whole argument seemed absurd.


We are far to kind to people who have commited violent crimes. For one I would like to see the reinstatement of public excecution.

For instance if her brother commited that murder in cold blood against a family member of mine she should thank the state for protecting her brothers life from me.

[ladyjade3]

You were arguing with someone who was far too emotionally involved in the issue to be rational about it. Move along.

[krazy kaju]

I'm making an argument for the justification of rights and retributive justice in the thread about humans, animals, and natural rights. We can justify justice like this:

You own yourself. If you attack another being capable of self-ownership, you are implicitly stating that you yourself do not have self-ownership. In other words, by denying self ownership to someone else, you are denying self ownership to yourself, since you are metaphysically very similar beings. Therefore, others can violate your self ownership since you have implicitly contracted that right out to them.

[micahnelson]

You were arguing with someone who was far too emotionally involved in the issue to be rational about it. Move along.

This.

[mediahasyou]

dont sweat it.

[Austin]

What is the goal of punishment?

[Toureg89]

For one I would like to see the reinstatement of public excecution.
except that such a thing would cost more than just keeping an offender alive.

that's how our appeals process is working at the time.

but, if both capital punishment, and life imprisonment mean the same thing: the loss of one's rights of freedom, should not the state do what's cheapest for the people who fund it?

[user]

but, if both capital punishment, and life imprisonment mean the same thing: the loss of one's rights of freedom, should not the state do what's cheapest for the people who fund it?

Except they don't mean the same thing, because there's a difference between being alive and being dead.

[nate895]

You were arguing with someone who was far too emotionally involved in the issue to be rational about it. Move along.

I figured that a few moments after she brought the reason for her position was her brother was in prison. I maintained the argument for the two people who agreed with her and to save face. I ducked out as soon as I could.

[Bman]

except that such a thing would cost more than just keeping an offender alive.

that's how our appeals process is working at the time.

but, if both capital punishment, and life imprisonment mean the same thing: the loss of one's rights of freedom, should not the state do what's cheapest for the people who fund it?

Ok you'll have to explain it to me. I'll give you scenarios and you tell me how putting somone in prison for life works in a more cost effective manner.

#1. Shot the person in the head.

Cost about $800 for a gun, and a few dollars for a bullet. Take in to consideration the gun has $50 maintenance fee for each use (I mean we want to make sure the one bullet does the job.) Ok so if the gun itself is only used for one public execution we've invested about $1000 max.

#2. Literally lock the person in a cell and throw away the key.

Now for this we have the cost of the room, but starvation without water should only really take about a week. So I'd have to say you could get rent on a small room really cheap and this would probabaly only really cost about $100 max.


Now if we put the person in prison we can have them work. But that's saying the person will work or will be productive. Not to mention when you take into account the need to pay guards, wardens, take up land, and so many other costs. The costs would get enormous.

So please explain to me how it is cheaper to keep someone alive in prison.

[nate895]

Ok you'll have to explain it to me. I'll give you scenarios and you tell me how putting somone in prison for life works in a more cost effective manner.

#1. Shot the person in the head.

Cost about $800 for a gun, and a few dollars for a bullet. Take in to consideration the gun has $50 maintenance fee for each use (I mean we want to make sure the one bullet does the job.) Ok so if the gun itself is only used for one public execution we've invested about $1000 max.

#2. Literally lock the person in a cell and throw away the key.

Now for this we have the cost of the room, but starvation without water should only really take about a week. So I'd have to say you could get rent on a small room really cheap and this would probabaly only really cost about $100 max.


Now if we put the person in prison we can have them work. But that's saying the person will work or will be productive. Not to mention when you take into account the need to pay guards, wardens, take up land, and so many other costs. The costs would get enormous.

So please explain to me how it is cheaper to keep someone alive in prison.

You are forgetting the much lengthier appeals process for those sentenced to death. We need to make sure they are, indeed, guilty.

[Bman]

You are forgetting the much lengthier appeals process for those sentenced to death. We need to make sure they are, indeed, guilty.

How do you see the appeal process going faster for a person serving life?

[idiom]

well if government could get just a teensy wee bit bigger we could all be happily in jail!

[Kludge]

What is the goal of punishment?

1) To remove potential threats from society.
2) To deter future aggression by others through fear-mongering.


Ironically, it is said that libertarians oppose preemptive action. Rehabilitation is rational. It gives the aggressor reason to regret what they did, and gives society a productive citizen. Punishment is just stupid. It costs money, and requires aggression, while rehabilitating no one, and probably not even making the aggressor feel sympathy for anyone except himself.

[angelatc]

You were arguing with someone who was far too emotionally involved in the issue to be rational about it. Move along.

Yes. This is why friends and family do not belong on juries.

[phill4paul]

You were arguing with someone who was far too emotionally involved in the issue to be rational about it. Move along.

If we were to just move along then we could justify drivers checkpoints.

Her points are in the opposite extreme. Victims families argue about the need for more detention and arrest. (i.e. "My so-an-so died at the hand of a drunk driver.) Familes in which justice is meted out in extremes feel differently. (i.e. My so-an-so was convicted of murder , but there were mitigating factors),

This is why EVERY trial should be in front of a jury that is advised of their right to nullify.

[angelatc]

1) To remove potential threats from society.
2) To deter future aggression by others through fear-mongering.


Ironically, it is said that libertarians oppose preemptive action. Rehabilitation is rational. It gives the aggressor reason to regret what they did, and gives society a productive citizen. Punishment is just stupid. It costs money, and requires aggression, while rehabilitating no one, and probably not even making the aggressor feel sympathy for anyone except himself.

The problem being that rehab doesn't work either. You might as well try giving them religion in jail.

Oh wait....

[Austin]

1) To remove potential threats from society.
2) To deter future aggression by others through fear-mongering.


Ironically, it is said that libertarians oppose preemptive action. Rehabilitation is rational. It gives the aggressor reason to regret what they did, and gives society a productive citizen. Punishment is just stupid. It costs money, and requires aggression, while rehabilitating no one, and probably not even making the aggressor feel sympathy for anyone except himself.

This is close to the answer I was hoping for.

We should be looking at more effective and efficient ways to achieve those goals. Sure, there are countless situations where prison fits the bill, but there are others where rehabilitation is more suitable. In fact, I would go as far to say that rehabilitation outside of what prison can offer is a necessary supplement in all cases.

That said, I did not read all of the original post, so I may be a little off-base.

[thasre]

This is close to the answer I was hoping for.

We should be looking at more effective and efficient ways to achieve those goals. Sure, there are countless situations where prison fits the bill, but there are others where rehabilitation is more suitable. In fact, I would go as far to say that rehabilitation outside of what prison can offer is a necessary supplement in all cases.

That said, I did not read all of the original post, so I may be a little off-base.

I'm with Kludge and Krippy. I don't think "punishment", for its own sake, even makes any sense. Prevention and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation for those criminals who are deemed capable and worthy, harsh imprisonment for others simply in order to stop them from committing future crimes, not out of some twisted sense of retribution or revenge. That's just tyranny. If you want vengeance, kill them yourself. But don't pass on to the State the authority to decide who's "earned" retribution. That's half the problem with the Drug War mentality... "We have to PUNISH them, they did something WRONG." Obviously murder is gravely wrong, but prevention should be the concern of the State, not punishment.

[idiom]

In New Zealand 3 strikes and you're out is being proposed.

After you have been to jail twice for a violent crime your third will get you 25 years.

At the moment its usually just another 12 year term.

[tremendoustie]

I'm with Kludge and Krippy. I don't think "punishment", for its own sake, even makes any sense. Prevention and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation for those criminals who are deemed capable and worthy, harsh imprisonment for others simply in order to stop them from committing future crimes, not out of some twisted sense of retribution or revenge. That's just tyranny. If you want vengeance, kill them yourself. But don't pass on to the State the authority to decide who's "earned" retribution. That's half the problem with the Drug War mentality... "We have to PUNISH them, they did something WRONG." Obviously murder is gravely wrong, but prevention should be the concern of the State, not punishment.

Punishment is prevention. If criminals didn't have to worry about prison, there would be a lot more crime. What's more, criminals have violated the rights of others, and so given up their right to be left alone. The problem with the drug war is not the idea of punishment for crime, it's the idea that people who have not harmed others have committed a crime.

[Soft Spoken Storm]

You were arguing with someone who was far too emotionally involved in the issue to be rational about it. Move along.

Bingo. If someone is that emotionally involved in a subject, they cannot make a rational argument, nor would they wish to. I admit that I have a particular bias against drunk drivers and the punishment they receive. Granted, that might have something to do with seeing one walk, and another one have his license suspended for just a few days and pay less than half of what he made a deal to pay. To put that punishment in perspective, my knees and left shoulder are still damaged from the last accident, and I have a ruptured disc between my C6 and C7 vertebrae. So I might not be the least unbiased opinion on that subject (though I won't call for death penalty or anything... I'd just like to see a license suspension and a fine and/or jail time depending on the damage they cause).

I can understand her plight, and at times I could see myself feeling bad for the young man. But if you take a life, you should not be given a free ride. You stole someone else's future, and you expect people to worry about you not having one yourself?

It's easy to avoid those jail terms and the death penalty where it may still apply: Don't commit the crime.

[pcosmar]

You were arguing with someone who was far too emotionally involved in the issue to be rational about it. Move along.
+1
The most rational statement to the OP.




It's easy to avoid those jail terms and the death penalty where it may still apply: Don't commit the crime.

This has to be the dumbest statement in this thread.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
http://www.truthinjustice.org/exoneration-study.htm
I have no issue with the punishment of crime, However I do have quite a few issues with the present state of our legal and justice system.
Even "murder" needs to be broken down and correctly prosecuted.
For a cold blooded, premeditated murder the harshest judgments apply. I would have no problem with convicting someone should solid evidence show them to be guilty.
However a Crime of passion, a momentary burst of anger, an unintentional killing should be looked at differently. It is still deserving of punishment, but less harsh,and the person could likely be rehabilitated. They are salvageable.
In our present system, maximum sentencing without regard to justice is the rule.
I suppose that is why I will NEVER be allowed to sit on a jury.

[Elwar]

Just a quick note: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was meant to limit the punishment. To prevent someone from saying...you killed one of my cattle, I'm going to kill two of yours...you killed two of my cattle, I'm going to kill four of yours...etc.

Punishment should be up to the victim, up to or equal to the crime (without it being cruel or unusual).

If the victim is dead, then it's assumed that his/her family or loved ones would keep the best interests of the victim to heart and they can decide the punishment.

I don't like the idea of "preventative punishment". Like you're making an example out of someone to prevent others from doing the same thing. The punishment is not for the actions of the perpetrator but for the potential actions of others.

[Soft Spoken Storm]

This has to be the dumbest statement in this thread.

Thank you for adding such a rational statement to the discussion. You disagree, therefore it must be stupid. How enlightening!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I was just arguing with a person who believed that people shouldn't be punished for violating crimes, even under the non-aggression axiom. Her opinion was that it was "wrong" to punish people for the rest of their lives because they committed murder. I explained to her that those people took away another person's rights, and therefore they should be punished and not her therapy idea.

She even used the Constitution. I told her that I was a constitutionalist, and as such she could not beat with a Constitutional argument. Her argument basically seemed to rely on the emotional appeal that her brother was locked away for the rest of his life at age 18 for murdering someone. I bluntly told her that if he was convicted, that is where he should be. He made the conscious choice to murder someone, knowing full well the consequences. He denied them their rights, thereby forfeiting his.

How could someone possibly think that aggressive acts should go by unpunished save a few years of ridiculous therapy? The whole argument seemed absurd.

The Constitution for the sake of the Constitution is no better than no Constitution whatsoever.
The Constitution is nothing more than our new, practical marriage to a more perfect government. But why? What document deals with the former marriage? For what right reason did we have to divorce ourselves out from under the rule of tyranny?
If all you care about is the Constitution, then you think like an amateur lawyer. Unless, of course, you are a lawyer. Then you misinterpret professionally.

[pcosmar]

Thank you for adding such a rational statement to the discussion. You disagree, therefore it must be stupid. How enlightening!

No, thank you.
I posted verification to back my statement.
I disagree with stupidity such as your unqualified statement.

The fact is, Someone CAN be arrested and convicted for doing NO crime at all. This fact can be proven by many sources. I posted 2.

That makes this,

Originally Posted by Soft Spoken Storm

It's easy to avoid those jail terms and the death penalty where it may still apply: Don't commit the crime.
Not only incorrect but friggin' stupid.

[Toureg89]

Ok you'll have to explain it to me. I'll give you scenarios and you tell me how putting somone in prison for life works in a more cost effective manner.

#1. Shot the person in the head.

Cost about $800 for a gun, and a few dollars for a bullet. Take in to consideration the gun has $50 maintenance fee for each use (I mean we want to make sure the one bullet does the job.) Ok so if the gun itself is only used for one public execution we've invested about $1000 max.

#2. Literally lock the person in a cell and throw away the key.

Now for this we have the cost of the room, but starvation without water should only really take about a week. So I'd have to say you could get rent on a small room really cheap and this would probabaly only really cost about $100 max.


Now if we put the person in prison we can have them work. But that's saying the person will work or will be productive. Not to mention when you take into account the need to pay guards, wardens, take up land, and so many other costs. The costs would get enormous.

So please explain to me how it is cheaper to keep someone alive in prison.

a death sentence is a death sentence, whether the execution is by electricution, or an executioner with a gun.

as such, unless if we change our legal/penal system, the amount of money the appeals process would cost after the moment execution is sentenced and before the moment execution is practiced, would amount of more money than just keeping a person in prison for life.

dont look at me, its a proven fact.

its costs more, after the appeals process, for kill an inmate, than it does to keep him/her imprisoned for life.

[dr. hfn]

We are far to kind to people who have commited violent crimes. For one I would like to see the reinstatement of public excecution.

For instance if her brother commited that murder in cold blood against a family member of mine she should thank the state for protecting her brothers life from me.

public executions would lead undoubtedly to bad consequences

[dr. hfn]

it would be great if we could just abandon criminals to some remote island and bloackde the island