Thread: Shall the criminally insane be put down like a dog with rabies?

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

... With the documented history of wrongful convictions in this country and the world at large; convictions based on faulty eyewitness testimony; convictions by biased juries; and not to mention all the cases that are now being reviewed in terms of DNA testing because the "13 jurors" got it wrong--to suggest public executions, including leaving the body on the street for as a symbolic "reminder" (of what exactly?) is nothing short of barbaric. ...

Facts never stopped an ideologue before.

X

Originally Posted by Bruno

Sort of like 'yeah it sucks, but this one is for the team'

isn't that the whole concept behind society? In Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, his concept of social contract is just that... an individual giving up personal rights in order to trade them for group/social rights within the context of a larger society. As such, by agreeing to live in a society, we trade the risks of the natural individual state (which Hobbes theorizes is nothing short of perpetual warfare) for the risks of living in an incorporated society (which Hobbes discusses at great, nearly epic, length). To me, the risks of living in an incorporated society are numerous but generally the benefits outweigh the risks. (obviously, otherwide I'd go live in a cave and be a hermit or something)

One of the risks of living in an incorporated society is that other members of the society, whether thru malice or incompetence, will abuse or misapply the social contract (rules) with undesirable consequences to you. We constantly amend the social contract in an effort to prevent abuse or misuse, but it DOES happen. No system is perfect, and although it definitely sucks that it's not perfect, it's still less worse than purely individualistic nonsociety. (which would be total anarchy)

no one expects me to make with the philosophizing, but I actually have spent a long time thinking about this stuff. where the hell is KantianPragmatist when you need him?

Originally Posted by jockeys

... where the hell is KantianPragmatist when you need him?

I guess there's only so long one can take the aggressive verbal abuses of the ill-informed before giving up, taking one's well educated ball and going home.

X

Originally Posted by xman

I guess there's only so long one can take the aggressive verbal abuses of the ill-informed before giving up, taking one's well educated ball and going home.

X

yeah... that's what it was

Originally Posted by jockeys

isn't that the whole concept behind society? In Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, his concept of social contract is just that... an individual giving up personal rights in order to trade them for group/social rights within the context of a larger society. As such, by agreeing to live in a society, we trade the risks of the natural individual state (which Hobbes theorizes is nothing short of perpetual warfare) for the risks of living in an incorporated society (which Hobbes discusses at great, nearly epic, length). To me, the risks of living in an incorporated society are numerous but generally the benefits outweigh the risks. (obviously, otherwide I'd go live in a cave and be a hermit or something)

One of the risks of living in an incorporated society is that other members of the society, whether thru malice or incompetence, will abuse or misapply the social contract (rules) with undesirable consequences to you. We constantly amend the social contract in an effort to prevent abuse or misuse, but it DOES happen. No system is perfect, and although it definitely sucks that it's not perfect, it's still less worse than purely individualistic nonsociety. (which would be total anarchy)

no one expects me to make with the philosophizing, but I actually have spent a long time thinking about this stuff. where the hell is KantianPragmatist when you need him?

I'm pro-death penalty, so I don't disagree with you for the most part here. However, if someone is truly legally insane, they are not breaking the social contract through malice or incompetence. They are "breaking it" because of an illness, a disease and they often can't help but do otherwise. I'm not talking about someone who is "angry", deviant or has a run of the mill mental disorder. I'm talking about someone who has had a profound break with reality. They can be treated in an institution and have some kind of life. I don't think they should be released, but executing them is going a step too far.

Jordan

Originally Posted by syslight

So if they have significantly different lifestyle or outlook on life they need to be institutionalized. Shall we apply that to none criminals as well? wed out the weaklings and the oddballs... is that what you would like?



figures!

I never said this concept was to be applied outside the setting of the criminal justice system. Your logic is quite bizarre.

Originally Posted by jnich67

they are not breaking the social contract through malice or incompetence. They are "breaking it" because of an illness, a disease and they often can't help but do otherwise.

Jordan

from wiktionary, emphasis mine:
incompetent

1. Unskilled, lacking normally expected degree of ability.

   Having an incompetent lawyer may be grounds for a retrial, but the lawyer in question probably doesn't know that.

2. Unable to make rational decisions, insane or otherwise cognitively impaired.

   The charged was judged incompetent to stand trial, at least until his medication started working.

Originally Posted by jockeys

no one expects me to make with the philosophizing, but I actually have spent a long time thinking about this stuff. where the hell is KantianPragmatist when you need him?

He left before I had the pleasure of banning him.

Btw to clarify my position: I fully believe that the world would be better off without certain individuals, and I do believe there are things that are inexcusable and worthy of capital punishment (or life on devils island like in the old days).

It's just that as a systematic approach it is flawed because humans will either make mistakes, or pervert the system. There are examples enough of wrongful convictions that we are not talking hypothetically.
And that price is too high imo.

The yes crowd is woefully in the minority here