Ronn Blankenship wrote:
>
>I've been feeling a little under the weather the past couple of days, so I
>may very well be missing something in your explanation (it wouldn't be the
>first time I've done so, and probably won't be the last ;-) ),
I'm pretty much digging myself a hole here. I'd intended this part to be
mostly inconsequential to the overall discussion. I don't have the
background or terminology to do a very good job in communicating what the
heck I'm talking about. Ah well. :)
>but I'm
>not aware of any religion or philosophy I'm familiar with that considers a
>person's "essence" ("spirit", "soul", or whatever you call it that makes us
>human and unique as individuals) distinct from his/her past
>experience.
I agree; but I think part of our cultural heritage has this as as an
implicit assumption at some level in nearly all human cultures. For most of
human history it was irrelevant - children were raised in a very controlled
environment and worked out just fine. There was no philosophy involved.
Flash forward to the modern era, where we wonder why latchkey kids lash out
at others. Or at least, we apparently wonder, since (a) we have them and (b)
it is discussed a lot.
>>I think this, combined with attitudes from recent eras (Victorian
>>stoicism, the liberal Post-WW2 era, etc), results in us viewing children
>>as fully fledged people who merely haven't memorized an encyclopedia yet.
>
>
>Again, I'm not sure who teaches this.
Nor am I - I'm just attempting to relate my feeble observations. On another
part of this thread I mention an experiment where children were shown an NRA
video on gun safety then given access to a gun to see if they'd obey the
video.
The results shouldn't be shocking - the children were given the symbolic
instruction "guns = bad" (the equivalent of reading it in an encyclopedia),
but had already been witness to thousands of examples of how to behave
around guns (pick up, point, shoot). So why was anyone shocked? Why was this
a story? Why does the NRA produce a video like that?
Apparently, some people *do* think that just telling kids what is right and
wrong is enough. And more people aren't shocked that some people think that
(even if they disagree).
>Now perhaps I understand. Most of what I have been referring to as
>"mainstream Judeo-Christian religions" (to be as general as possible and to
>avoid singling any one out or leaving any one out), would be considered on
>today's political spectrum to be "socially conservative." The
>practicing/believing members of most of them would agree with you
>assessment of today's culture as "liberal," and to them, that label is
>equivalent to "secular humanist," "Godless," or "anti-Christian." Most
>believing/practicing members of such religions believe that it does take a
>lot of involvement on the part of parents, the schools, the churches, and
>the community to raise good kids, and that kids whose non-tangible needs
>are neglected are more likely to grow up bad. Some of them even feel that
>it is necessary to home-school their children because the public schools
>are doing such a poor job of teaching them social and moral values.
That's not quite what I meant, but extremely interesting. In theory, I would
assume that religious persons believing in a divinely-gifted soul would
assume that children would be inherently good (this soul thing takes care of
all of the details like what's good/bad), and that secular persons,
believing in no such thing, would be much more careful about what their
children are exposed to. Obviously, in practice, that's hogwash and doesn't
map to any extant religion I'm aware of.
What I meant by "liberal" is "let people do whatever they want" - e.g.
general libertarian philosophies, like free speech, freedom of belief and
expression, etc. (Not hard-core Ann Rand/big-L Libertarian.)
I think what's happened is that our culture has become more secular is has
moved away from any and all things traditional. That is, we don't want
restrictions on our behavior, whether dictated by religion, government or
society. Part of it is that we then lose the child-rearing traditions of
those religions, and another part of it is that we want to give our children
the same freedoms we profess.
So I think the larger religions are perhaps more successful in raising
stable children not because of what they believe (in the philosophical
hairy-thunderer/cosmic-muffin, soul vs. no soul sense) but in the
traditional structure they maintain. If you reject the religion you reject
the structure and hence end up having to make everything up yourself. A
religion with 1000+ years of well-tested traditions of child-rearing just
may do a better job than 2 parents winging it on their own.
>>** And, for the record, I am philosophically opposed to any sort of pure
>>"revenge" punishment in response to crimes; rather, I favour reparations
>>where possible and prevention of repetition.
>
>
>I'm sure we could spend a good deal of time (and generate a goodly number
>of flames ;-) )
Oh, heck yeah. I was almost going to cut that footnote just to avoid the new
thread. But what the hay...
>For example, what do you feel
>would be a suitable penalty
Please bear in mind that I'm winging this. :) Like that other thread,
consider this a proposal for the Brin-L Martian Colony.
>for murder?
What was the situation? Why did the murder occur? Is it likely to happen
again?
You see the interesting variations of this one on Law & Order all the time.
E.g. the HMO operator whose policies denied a schizophrenic patient
treatment, leading the patient to kill. The patient is institutionalized.
The HMO operator is convicted of criminally neglegent homocide. In the
former case that seems entirely reasonable - the person is severely
troubled, and is a danger to others, so providing treatment and monitoring
so they can't do it again seems reasonable. For the latter, will that stop
the HMO operator from doing it again, or help the victim's family? No -
instead I'd have them divest their wealth to the victim's family, and enjoy
a stint as a well-monitored government employee. Meanwhile, force laws and
oversight committees to be created to dictate and regulate HMO behavior. If
society doesn't deem those necessary, then apparently the operator did
nothing wrong in the first place.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a simple murder. Are they the
stereotypical gang member shooting a rival? How about a stint in the
military followed by job training and relocation. A husband who murders his
wife for the insurance money? Brand it on his forehead so his next wife will
be more careful, and his wages are garnished paying court costs. A wife who
gives her terminally ill husband an overdose of medication? Probably
counselling, and that's it (although if she remarries the new husband should
be warned).
In general, I want to repair damage where possible (usually financially),
and prevent repetition (by force if necessary, but exploring other avenues
first).
>For rape? For child
>molestation?
These are more clear cut. People kill other people for all sorts of reasons,
and can do so accidentally. These are almost exclusively acts of violence.
For rape, it must be admitted that there is the slim possibility of
extenuating circumstances (e.g. he said/she said), or statutory rape (s/he's
18, s/he's 16). Attempt to determine if it was one of those cases and no
pattern has been established to indicate it is a compulsive behavior. If
not, defendant pays for counselling for both victim and self (possibly
involving institutionalization for the latter).
Otherwise, sterilization (physically prevent them from doing it again),
intense counselling, and fair reparations - they're paying for counselling
for the victim, as well as the government's court costs and their own
treatment. Toss in what the Culture list would term a "slap drone" - some
method of monitoring them to ensure they don't do it again.
Just execute repeat offenders (unless there are some inconceivable
extenuating circumstances) - this isn't something you do accidentally, it's
a malicious act. Obviously, everything you tried the first time didn't work.
>For someone who repeatedly steals, i.e., who is caught,
>convicted, and punished, then turns right around and does it again, and
>again, and again?
I'm presuming we've checked for mental illness (are they compulsively
shoplifting, something an antipsychotic drug might help?) and they're not
doing it because they're homeless/starving (usually also caused by mental
illness). This is after we've eliminated the other possibilities - they're
obviously just unrepentant and likely to commit again. We've also tried less
severe things like institutionalization, counselling, etc.
Either draft them, freeze them, or execute them.
- The former has a chance of destroying their personality and rebuilding
them as someone more useful to society. They're unlikely to do much harm in
the strict structure of the military. If necessary, keep them in boot camp
for the next 50 years.
- Freeze them until we understand how to cope with this better. Not really
feasible at the moment.
- Execute them - a last resort, but apparently nothing else will work.
Note that this is completely at odds with the notion of proscribed
sentences, and pretty much with our legal system in general.
There is some sense in the "
If we keep the notion of juries, I would allow things like, "based on the
evidence presented, we're only 75% sure that the accused acted as charged,
but based on the evidence we find them a potential danger to society and
recommend institutionalization, counselling, and a stint as a government
worker"
Joshua
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
