On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:14 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> The question is about moral responsibility >>> >> >> >> The question is about the purpose of punishment. >> > > > Well, that's a different question >
That is the ONLY question the law should consider. > but as originally phrased it seemed to me that the point being addressed > was whether or not someone can be considered guilty. > If he's considered guilty then he should be punished and if he did it then he should be considered guilty. > One can only (rationally and consistently) consider someone guilty if > free will exists, > Tell me what the hell it means and I'll tell you if it exists. > otherwise we are reduced to merely considering whether punishment is > justified. > Merely? Operationally what difference would it make? > Personally I don't think free will exists, > Tell me what the hell it means and I'll tell you if you're right. >>> because of various conditions that aren't their fault (e.g. genetic or >>> due to illnesses or maltreatment), and we even have the science to back it >>> up now. >>> >> >> >> We have only gibberish like the "free will" noise to back it up. There >> are only 4 possibilities: >> 1) The criminal committed the crime because he had bad genes. >> 2) The criminal committed the crime because he had a bad environment. >> 3) The criminal committed the crime because he had bad genes and a bad >> environment. >> 4) The criminal committed the crime because of a random quantum >> fluctuation which has no cause. >> > > > Well you just agreed with me, then. All those are scientific reasons > that back up the existence of conditions that the person couldn't help. > I don't agree with you because I don't care in the slightest if "the person couldn't help it" or not, all I'm interested in is if punishing the criminal will prevent future crimes. If punishment doesn't do that then there is no point in ever punishing anybody for anything. >>> Eventually we should reach the point where a mass murderer isn't >>> killed, or put away for life, but has his or her brain reprogrammed so that >>> s/he is no longer a mass murderer. In other words, if the software is >>> faulty, get an upgrade. >>> >> >> >> We can do that already. Passing a current of a few hundred amps >> through the brain of a mass murderer for a minute or two would result in a >> marvelous upgrade. >> >> > I already mentioned the flaw in this reasoning. The law can make > mistakes, > And I've already mentioned that murderers can and do continue to murder while they are in prison, and prisoners can and do escape. And a man who continues to murder AFTER he has already been convicted of murder is just as big a failure of the law as executing a innocent man. On a different matter, do you refuse to drive a car because there is a finite possibility you will make a mistake and drive over a innocent pedestrian? > I assume you wouldn't like to be framed for a murder you didn't commit > and then executed for it > True, I wouldn't like that very much. I wouldn't like being murdered by someone who had already been convicted of murder either. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
