I know the thesis of Foucoult over the discipline on societ, in fact.Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Yes I agree, though i'll not puke.if someone brings morality into this discussion I'm going to puke all over the screen. LMAO!![]()
So you believe in the archaic idea of "eye for an eye", not this is definetily out of the question, today the idea of basic rights of the human being are acceptable (right to live, to be free, to honor, to privacy, etc). The ironic is that they are irrebocable, so to enprison a person you must erase his condition of human being, to me it has not justification, the only case will be in those really dangerous, deranged persons that have lost all reason and can cause real problems, to all the other cases a fine according to the case will be enough.MY personal opinion:
If you take away another citizen's right to something that is considered basic then you should be punished accordingly. If you murder someone, you will be executed. If you steal something then you have to pay it back 1200%. That's the way it should work. For every two negative numbers that are equal there are two positive numbers that mean exactly the same, therefore negative and positive intermix.
I agree though this says nothing about the privation of freedom (see my short explanation above).Originally Posted by Redleg
Incorrect, how so? Let's see this.If you think its a outdated principle - well your entitled to your opinion no matter how incorrect it is.
This is correct. But nothing of this prooves me wrong. Why private a man from his inherent freedom? You might want to know that many jurists have proposed and actual plan of abolishment of privation of freedom, just as a little data. The individual predates the society, the society then blames the individual for the things that probably the same society caused. So the natural rights of the individual predates all possible social order. The case of the fines will be different one, because the money received is a product of the work done for the society, then it's acceptable to ask for a part of it when society was damaged.Society must have a way to insure that those who break the laws are made aware of how much society is dissatified with their behavior. The degree of punishment should have some correlation to the crime that the individual committed.
Well i believed that your religious morality will not take an step on ignorance, but this rule is totally archaic, i'll give you the three positions that justificate punishment in doctrine:1- Retribution (the subject has to heal the damage done to society by it's actions, the penalty is the justification in itself, this is the most acceptable position because it treats the person as human as possible) 2- General prevention (this has various reaches, but the principal idea is keeping the irreverent in privation and restitute the confidence of society in law) 3- Special prevention (keep others individuals from taking simialar actions -part of the previous teory- and returning the being to a normal social state, wich means educating him). The last two are totally unacceptable, they treat the human like an instrument and like a "dog" (from the example of Kant in his tale of the "Island" and a quote by Roxin in his book of General Part of the law). So there you've the positions, you were right when you said it was for retribution, but mention the "eye for an eye" is incorrect.And yes the state or society can deprive someone of their basic freedoms - especially if the behavior of the individual deprived someone of their basic freedoms or property. The basic moral of an eye for an eye still applies to society. (Just to make BP Puke his guts out.)
You still seem to have not undestood anarchism, but let's see, I'm asking this from the phylosophy of rights not from the added position to a given society or reality, try to make this as abstract as possible.Originally Posted by GelatinousCube
The punishment, at least in Germany where i believe that the more rational canons of justice exists in todays world, fits the crime indeed.I think that punishment should fit the crime. I also think the concept of prisons needs a serious overhaul. Like i've always been saying, crime should fit into two categories:
So you want to punish the posetion of drugs, you started with the left foot, i believed you were not a moralist, this one goes against your first amendment. The state cannot make assumptions on the person, it only punishes over the basis of actions, so the state cannot tell if you're still valuable, this is a very spreaded misconception, even between politicians that use this an instrument. You're taking the possition of special prevention, many scientists remain in that position, but that makes the previous assumption of the functions of the state and the power it has over the individual, is like hitting your dog with an stick to correct him, as said before the most human teory only considers retribution, not correction. LOL- Druggies- LOL...Minor: This would be something like shoplifting, or posession of drugs. Punishments for minor crimes would go on the assumption that you are still capable of being a valuable member of society, and that you can be reformed. There would be prison time, and there would be classes geared towards turning you straight. As well as drug treatment for druggies.I never used drugs but again this position is archaic and must be erased from legislatives system right now (this is for another discussion).
ufff...the drugs again, this will be solved if they are legislated as it should be. Oh i see now the state decides your fate,Major: Major Crimes, such as Drug Dealing, Rape, Murder, Large-Scale Tax Evasion, and (in an ideal world) government corruption. Punishment for these would go under the assumption that you are not now, nor ever, fit for society. Depending on the crime, the result should be either Life in Prison (possibility of parole for some crimes), or death. In the event that someone is paroled, and commits another Major crime, they ought to be put to death.sorry GC but while the society is still rational this will never happen. And you support death penalty, the ritual of the pagans who sacrifice the peer to make the Sun rise again... interesting, you might want to know that this comes from morality. You're totally incorrect on this GC, i hope you correct your possition, society cannot decide over the life of another human being, as i said before for the things that probably the same society created, not to talk about that this will be vengeance and not proper retribution.
Abolish law? I never said that, and anarchist don't want to abolish lawOriginally Posted by kagemusha
.You don't understand anarchy, it seems that you readed only the page provided by GC in anarchocapitalism, that is unfoundable.
Yes I've sadly noticed that in this thread.Originally Posted by sharrukin
Wrong the state postdates the human being, so the society recognices older and inherent rights that every positive legislation must respect. A man alone, will not be an human from my conception. Is not nature wich recognices this is the same society that punish humans. You didn't understand me, I'm not talking about positive rights, but natural ones that predate all forms of state.There are no inherent rights except those which are created by the state. A man, solitaire and alone on a desert isle has no inherent right to life. Nature recognizes no such thing. He has no right to suitable housing, no right to participate in fair elections, etc. Because the state, tribe, city, nation, global society, or whatever you care to call it is what creates human freedoms, or denies them. They are human constructs not found in nature. The Fox will hunt Rabbits, and no amount of legislative bills passed through the Rabbit Congress will convince the Fox of the inherent Rabbit right to life.You're right but this does not justifies the privation of physical freedom as putting someone in jail. Thouugh i'll never eat that speech of the founding fathers, even more in the USA where one of the amendments clearly states that every american has the right to keep arms.Society justifies the denial of freedoms in varying circumstances based on its own needs. A state must continue to exist or the rights and freedoms under discussion lose all meaning. Therefore the survival of the state is of greater importance than the freedoms of a single individual. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." This phrase means that the American (or indeed anyone's) Founding Fathers did not intend the Constitution (or fill in the blank) to prevent our self-defense. The rights and freedoms must not be such as to leave the state helpless before its enemies. This does not give the state carte blanche to act in any way it cares to, but it does mean that freedoms are not absolute. The state must be subject torestraints to prevent abuse and so must individual freedoms be so restrained.
Duke: I agree only with your two first statements. As far as the third goes you're wrong, revenge is an archaic and irrational conception, the justice is in it's theorical nature impartial and rational, and you're contradicting yourself, first you state it institucionalices revenge and then you say it prevents revenge. The fourth is totally unacceptable the society and for instance the state, cannot take a higher moral ground and treat the person like an instrument or like a puppet. And finally you misunderstood me, I'm not trying to abolish the penal system, just the privation of freedom (not to talk about death penalty), the penal system still gives form to the actions that are disvaloured by society. And yes that subjugating effect of penal law is happening right now here. Sometimes the people forget that the penal law is subsidiary and final resource, because it's consecuences are very difficult to justify or accept, I'll say that many of the posters here forgot that.
Bookmarks