[Sceptic]

I recently watched 'Shut Up and Dance' from Charlie Brooker's fantastic but disturbing Black Mirror series. The whole thinking about the traditionally accepted paradigm for arguments on justice. In short, we often hear leftists support socially 'liberal' schemes such as rehabilitation for serious crimes like murder, rape and child molestation with the justification/reasoning that either 1. deterrent is ineffective or 2. we should have sympathy for where our social and biological circumstances take us. I want to layout why 1. is incorrect and that while there may be truth to 2., it's a non-sequitur to assume rehabilitation is the conclusions of this reasoning.

1. Deterrent is Ineffective

Deterrent is certainly not completely ineffective - in cases involving sociopathy, for example, the person may not be restricted by empathy meaning that the threat of legal restitution may be the only thing preventing them from acting on malicious intent. By the way, not all sociopaths are necessarily sadistic, however they may be rationally incentivised to act in a manner both unlawful and unethical, e. if there was money involved. Then there are cases e.g. involving crimes of passion. Often when we become too emotional, we don't think about consequences however threat of restitution may still have a small chance of influencing the affected person's consciousness.

Even if deterrent is ineffective, what is even worse is allowing extremely dangerous offenders back on the street! This goes without saying: a rapist is more likely to rape again even if he is 'rehabilitated' than if he was simply executed. Some offenders may be truly rehabilitated but nobody ever knows for sure. Anyway since the leftist way of thinking may be more predominantly focused on the ethics of killing someone - even a seriously messed up offender, I'll move onto 2.

2. We Should Have Sympathy for Where our Social and Biological Circumstances Take Us

First of all, nobody really knows if determinism is true over free will or to what extent: compatibilism could also be true. However it doesn't really matter because even if somebody freely chooses to do wrong, it's possible to empathise with them regardless on the grounds that they have turned out this way. I still believe capital punishment is the correct response: if you truly feel guilty then spending your whole life in remorse is a much worse punishment. If not then you will not be rehabilitated anyway.

Besides, letting out, let's say, a child molester is unacceptable regardless of determinism vs. free will arguments: that person can never be trusted in society again. This is not to say that a paedophile (as opposed to child molester) who had never acted on their paraphilia would be immediately executed rather than given help. This would be a detrimental idea because paedophiles need to be unafraid of asking for help in a society we desperately need to help paedophiles to control their urges. Sam Harris in a lecture made a point that if you had been pointing a gun at the son of Saddam Hussein then what regardless of the social/biological factors that brought this man to the decisions he made, what lover of life would not pull that trigger?

Other Arguments

There's an argument that if the offenders are not free or responsible, neither are the jailors. This argument is more 'right wing' (there is in fact a problem with such a binary view of left-right politics as we can see even in my own 'leftist' justification for capital punishment) but still relevant to the discussion. In short, it misses the point. It's about the consequences involved and not who's right or wrong. We need a quick, ethical solution that will also protect the vulnerable and this is a quick death by two or three bullets just to make sure. There is one more compelling argument, however.

Sometimes innocent people are convicted. Maybe that's true but what's worse? Spending your life in prison for a crime you did not commit or being killed much earlier? Ok, so you can always appeal if you have the opportunity to prove (after enduring possible prison beatings and rape that is ... yes very 'humane'). However there is a middle-ground alternative, namely a lengthier trial process throughout which the prisoner (yet to be tried) is separated from other convicts.

Conclusion

In short, when we look at the binary political spectrum in all it's glory we see a lot of glaring contradictions - blood thirsty right wingers who haven't really considered things in terms of effectiveness or the fact that there system might not be so punitive after all. In contrast, we have a lot of naivety on the left from people who really do take the moral high ground and assume that their system is more pragmatic when that really may not be the case entirely. It's a shame most people are always so quick to fall into one of two categories without really taking the time to consider the factors which they may very well need to know. Our society is truly doomed if people can't get a grasp of this and fast.

[Oxymandias]

@Sceptic

1. There are ways to determine whether or not a dangerous offender will offend again. Dangerous offenders often have abnormal brain activity and show signs of psychological distress. Only after the offender is deemed psychologically healthy and well-adjusted by professional neuroscientists and psychologists will the offender be released.

2. You act as if rehabilitation is simply letting someone out of prison with no punishment. Rehabilitation is the process of turning a criminal into a productive member of society. You obviously know this but you don't quite understand it, you don't understand what this involves.

A successful rehabilitation involves making the offender understand that he committed a crime and help the offender work to become a better person through any viable assistance necessary.

A person who truely feels remorse in my opinion needs to work to become a better person in order to redeem himself. Capital punishment and deatj is an easy way out. There's no guarantee that the offender learned anything at all throughout the punishment and could potentially commit a crime again when released.

2a. Obviously. But I don't think they should be executed. They should be treated like most people with mental illness. As in treated in places where they can do no harm to others. And no, not jail or asylums.

What does Sam Harris have to do with this? And why would you shoot the son of Saddam, a person you know nothing about and nothing about what he did or what he's like. Unless your shooting Saddam's son in order to damage Saddam's morale then you make a little bit more sense but based on your post it seems unlikely given what this topic is about.

3. That is far from ethical. The death is ethical but the idea of killing someone and giving them a free pass with no way of taking responsibility for their actions and building themselves again is truely amoral in my opinion.

3a. And do you know how to solve that problem? Reforming the prison and legal system.

3b. As I stated before, there are clear ways to identify whether or not a person is rehabilitated or not. If a person is seen to have no problems and is well-adjusted, then their prison sentence will decreased. Therefore even though you are spending time in prison, you are spending less time and not enough time that death would be a better option. 2 years isn't a lot of time if you ask me. Especially if rehabilitated offenders get special privileges such being allowed to leave the prison and do whatever abit with supervision from local authorities.

But how do you differniate falsely accused convicts from actual convicts? You can't. The information isn't there.

Conclusion:

There is no right or left. You can be a leftist and support capital punishment and you can be rightist and oppose capital punishment. Whatever suits your moral compass I guess.

[Sceptic]

1. There are ways to determine whether or not a dangerous offender will offend again. Dangerous offenders often have abnormal brain activity and show signs of psychological distress. Only after the offender is deemed psychologically healthy and well-adjusted by professional neuroscientists and psychologists will the offender be released.

Oxymandias, you make it sound like an MRI scan can successfully determine whether or not a person will reoffend. If that was true, our system would have much more success at preventing offenders to begin with. According to a quick google search 50% of offenders reoffend which - if true - means the whole rehabilitation process is effectively a coin toss. Letting a convicted child molester loose, depending on the stats for that crime could be the equivalent of calling heads on another child's safety which is totally unacceptable.

open.justice.gov.uk/reoffending/prisons/

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8575034.stm

https://fullfact.org/crime/reoffending-short-sentences/

2. You act as if rehabilitation is simply letting someone out of prison with no punishment. Rehabilitation is the process of turning a criminal into a productive member of society. You obviously know this but you don't quite understand it, you don't understand what this involves.

Yes I am aware of a process and no I don't know all the details but I do know that we can never be 100% certain of an offender's rehabilitation and anything less than that is a totally unacceptable gamble with human welfare. I specified 'rehabilitation' rather than 'punishment' because of the liberal premise that actions in a determinist universe can never be truly blameworthy and therefore never truly deserving of 'punishment'. I don't know if determinism is true but I am sympathetic to that way of thinking.

A person who truely feels remorse in my opinion needs to work to become a better person in order to redeem himself. Capital punishment and deatj is an easy way out.

Like I said, if incompatibilist determinism is true, then no reason to make someone feel guilty when they are ultimately the product of their social/biological circumstances.

There's no guarantee that the offender learned anything at all throughout the punishment and could potentially commit a crime again when released.

If we're dealing with a lesser offender, then absolutely rehabilitation is an option. I used the example of a paedophile who has not acted upon - but rather suppressed - his paraphilia so far. Otherwise the offender needs to be executed and that way we don't need to worry about committing a crime again when released.

2a. Obviously. But I don't think they should be executed. They should be treated like most people with mental illness. As in treated in places where they can do no harm to others. And no, not jail or asylums.

As long as they are not allowed in public this is better but the whole thing becomes expensive and there does need to be a stronger deterrent than simply locking someone in a nice spacious private cell with a library, exercise facilities and nice view (some Scandinavian rehabilitation centres are like this).

What does Sam Harris have to do with this?

He made some similar points in a lecture on the debate.

And why would you shoot the son of Saddam, a person you know nothing about and nothing about what he did or what he's like.

I do know about his son: he was a sadistic sociopath living a playboy lifestyle and killing and torturing people for fun. He was so hated he had to get a body double to prevent assassination but in the end he finally got shot, saving many many lives which was Harris' point: we don't know what circumstances made him but if you were a lover of life you would do the same thing regardless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uday_Hussein

Unless your shooting Saddam's son in order to damage Saddam's morale

No that would be unethical as he is not to blame for his father.

3. That is far from ethical. The death is ethical but the idea of killing someone and giving them a free pass with no way of taking responsibility for their actions and building themselves again is truely amoral in my opinion.

Well like I said the logical conclusions of leftist thought should be 'kill them and make it snappy'. If you want to endorse a right-wing stance, that's different.

3a. And do you know how to solve that problem? Reforming the prison and legal system.

Again, could be much more expensive and wasteful than a fast, efficient death. I don't mean to moralise but the public funds are better spent on people with their lives ahead of them than people that have already wrecked their own and others.

3b. As I stated before, there are clear ways to identify whether or not a person is rehabilitated or not.

You need to state what these are and make the case that they are 1. effective, 2. worth the money.

Therefore even though you are spending time in prison, you are spending less time and not enough time that death would be a better option.

But that's just it: a lot of sentences are already way too lenient for serious, dangerous offenders, especially considering that you can end up in jail for a lot longer for relatively petty crimes sometimes. The whole thing just makes no sense.

But how do you differniate falsely accused convicts from actual convicts? You can't. The information isn't there.

It's impossible to be completely sure. Just like people will be killed by cars sometimes, there will be victims of the justice system (fewer, I'd hope for extended trials for serious crimes). However, the alternative - some innocent people spend their lives in jail and some 'rehabilitated' offenders are allowed to walk free ... that is much worse.

[/quote]You already seem to have deep convictions about the topic.[/quote]

Doesn't matter: I'm open to discussion.

[Oxymandias]

Delete

[Sivad]

Sometimes innocent people are convicted. Maybe that's true but what's worse? Spending your life in prison for a crime you did not commit or being killed much earlier? Ok, so you can always appeal if you have the opportunity to prove (after enduring possible prison beatings and rape that is ... yes very 'humane'). However there is a middle-ground alternative, namely a lengthier trial process throughout which the prisoner (yet to be tried) is separated from other convicts.

Seriously? That's how you square that? It may not be a big deal in your mind but decent people aren't quite that cavalier about executing the innocent. I don't have any problem with the death penalty in principle, but the fact is the system has failed too many times to be trusted with that kind of power.

Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated. As a percentage of all death sentences, that's just 1.6 percent. But if the innocence rate is 4.1 percent, more than twice the rate of exoneration, the study suggests what most people assumed but dreaded: An untold number of innocent people have been executed

[Sceptic]

Of course I have a problem with it but innocent people will suffer one way or another, whether it's life in jail or repeat offenders. I honestly believe that what I proposed would minimise all-round suffering. In your quote, what percentage of the 2.5% remaining were given extended trial periods (5-10 years)? Also, where was it sourced from?

[Oxymandias]

@Sceptic

1. MRI scan is meant to check abnormal brain activity. Then psychologists and neuroscientists work together to explain that abnormal brain activity and find solutions to it.

1a. That implies that the system we use is purely rehabilitational which is false. When rehabilitation is done in the US, it is not done correctly and is often times done harshly increasing the amount of reoffenders. Furthermore 90% of all crimes in the US, according to an FBI report made in 2013, are financial related and if we coincide this with your assertion that 50% of all offenders reoffend then about 40%, and I'm being generous here, 40% of all crimes made by reoffenders are financial based. What does this mean? Well a purely rehabilitational system would focus on making an offender become an upstanding member of society by helping them study, providing job employment assistance, providing psychological help, etc. The current system does none of these things.

2. You cannot be aware of the process because there are no real world examples to draw from. If you want to see what I mean by rehabilitation you look into psychiatric institutions and well-known modern asylums to get a glimpse as to what I mean.

2a. And you cannot be 100% certain that capital punishment will lead to a lower crime rate. In fact there's evidence that shows that states with no death penalties have lower homicide rates:

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence ... rder-rates

2b. That is assumption and can be considered an opinion. That is my own opinion and that is your opinion and we don't seem willing change that. To prevent going in circles we should agree to disagree and leave it at that.

2c. That would only further discourage pedophiles from alerting authorities for help and could potentially stop children who have been molested from also seeking help from authorities. When you know you're dad's going to die if you tell, you would want to shut your mouth. You have given offending pesos a good reason to prevent their victims from telling.

2d. What stronger deterrent is necessary? They're going to be locked up for years in prison. And if they're not acting up, why should they be punished? And I don't know about the USA but if Switzerland, with a GDP lower than the US, the country with the highest the world can do it, then so can Iran!

Of course I would. But that is a very different circumstance. Saddam's son is a political figure beyond the law. The only way to stop him is death.

So? The goal is to stop Saddam so you kill Saddam's son to lower Saddam's morale potentially allowing Saddam to make bad decisions so that we could exploit them.

3. You have not given any proof that it is the logical conclusion of "leftism" as if such a thing exists.

3a. Dude, the justice and prison ystem directly effects society and its well-being. Death penalty countries have lower trust among citizens and in their government and are more likely to be onservative. The justice and prison system need to be reformed in order to gain an aspect of stability in everyday life.

3b. MRI scans are cheap these days and you just need someone who can read an MRI scan for it to work. Some prisons already hire psychologists as well with only a slight cost. That is all that is needed.

3c. That isn't relevant. You can always extend sentences. The point is that they're dynamic. Depending on how rehabilitated you are, your sentence may decrease significantly with the added benefit of special privileges.

3c. With my system not only will there be less innocent people behind bars, but they'll be out of bars much more quicker.

You definitely don't understand rehabilitation. People who are rehabilitated are not still criminals and convicts who will offend again. They are now normal people. What, is normal people walking around worse than innocents behind bars?

Openness to discussion doesn't matter. If you have deep convictions then there is no benefit to any form of discussion since you won't change your mind and I won't change mine. There is no point to this.

[Oxymandias]

@Sceptic But true rehabilitation will decrease repeat offenders since they have no reason to offend again. If true rehabilitation is in place they will become normal members of society.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I'd be interested in how successful we are in predicting rehabilitation. How many people who are released, say by parole boards and/or based on a psychological assessment, do re-offend? I've never seen any data on this, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that we get it wrong quite often.

[Decky]

Leftists do practice the death penalty, have you been living under a rock?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Blokhin

Vasily Mikhailovich Blokhin (Russian: Васи́лий Миха́йлович Блохи́н, 7 January 1895 – 3 February 1955) was a Soviet Russian Major-General who served as the chief executioner of the Stalinist NKVD under the administrations of Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov, and Lavrentiy Beria.

Hand-picked for the position by Joseph Stalin in 1926, Blokhin led a company of executioners that performed and supervised numerous mass executions during Stalin's reign, mostly during the Great Purge and World War II.[2] He is recorded as having executed tens of thousands of prisoners by his own hand, including his killing of about 7,000 Polish prisoners of war during the Katyn massacre in spring 1940,[2][3] making him the most prolific official executioner and mass murderer in recorded world history.[2][4] Forced into retirement following the death of Stalin, Blokhin died in 1955, officially reported as a suicide.

The ignorance on pofo these days is astounding.

[Sceptic]

@Decky I'm talking about a general consensus among people on the centre-left nowadays. I'm not talking about every leftist that ever existed and I'm definitely not talking about extremists with communist ideologies.

@Kaiserschmarrn Yeah, me too.

@Oxymandias That's a very narrow viewpoint about the whole 'won't discuss with someone who doesn't agree with me'. For one thing, you can still broaden your perspective without changing your opinion overnight. For another thing, it's not that I never change my opinion, I actually change my opinion much, much more than most people you will probably meet. I just don't flip flop between beliefs like I used to, it's a slow and gradual process which is the only it's sane to be. I'll address the rest of your points later.

[Sivad]

Of course I have a problem with it but innocent people will suffer one way or another, whether it's life in jail or repeat offenders.

So we might as well just execute them? I'm pretty sure that no matter how bad prison is most wrongly convicted people would still strongly prefer not to be executed.

I honestly believe that what I proposed would minimise all-round suffering.

Well then why stop there? We could expand the death penalty to any crime that carries more than ten years in prison because death is more humane. And by that same logic maybe we should be euthanizing people with severe disabilities and really anyone who to us doesn't seem to have a life worth living.

In your quote, what percentage of the 2.5% remaining were given extended trial periods (5-10 years)?

It doesn't really matter because just doing that math makes one a monster. Even if we improved the system to the point that it only murdered one innocent person per decade instead of the current 30+(that we know of) it would still be unacceptable.

Also, where was it sourced from?

Newsweek.

[Sceptic]

Well then why stop there? We could expand the death penalty to any crime that carries more than ten years in prison because death is more humane

...


Even if we improved the system to the point that it only murdered one innocent person per decade instead of the current 30+(that we know of) it would still be unacceptable.

...

So we might as well just execute them? I'm pretty sure that no matter how bad prison is most wrongly convicted people would still strongly prefer not to be executed.

1. I'm not just discussing innocents that are wrongfully imprisoned for life (as in life - which should be the case to keep extremely dangerous offenders behind bars). I'm discussing innocents that will be the victims of reoffenders: and getting bludgeoned to death by a sociopath is far worse than a simple bullet. That's not a whimsical speculation either. When we take into account the broader social consequences, what I propose undoubtedly minimises suffering to a far greater extent. The people on the right and the left who don't see this are the ones causing harm with their insidiously mind-looping social narratives, not me.

2. For extreme crimes, e.g. child molestation, the treatment is likely to be far more severe than it is for a simple bank robber or fraudster. That isn't me being subjective, it's well known that child offenders get worse treatment, with the exception perhaps of cops and petty but vulnerable offenders who should be sent to separate wards for protection (private showers, CCTV in case of guard abuse). Letting petty offenders out sooner or putting more of them on community service / rehabilitation programs would save money and prison space, enabling for better prison security. What I'm proposing is an extremely liberal perspective - prisoners would be treated far, far better and more criminal records would be wiped clean, facilitating community integration (getting employment) after sentences, reducing the likelihood of reoffending.

3. Well that just begs the question about should some sentences so severe that the offender is sent down for as long as someone that could rape, murder or abuse children on release? If we follow my logic fully then some offenders will be released much sooner while other offenders will never be released. Questions of innocence and guilt aside, is it better for those people to die after 5-10 years of trial in separate wards or to die after they spent their life in prison?

And by that same logic maybe we should be euthanizing people with severe disabilities and really anyone who to us doesn't seem to have a life worth living.

No that doesn't follow: euthanasia doesn't equal execution. I am saying 'be merciful' but it's still an execution. People who have committed serious crimes don't get the privilege of making their own choices anymore because they have proven themselves to be a social threat. It would not be ethical to strip away the right to make choices from that has lived a lawful/ethical existence.

It doesn't really matter because just doing that math makes one a monster.

Whenever you're being forced to deal with moral lifeboat situations, you become something of a monster. But that problem is real: political institutions need to deal with it and as citizens it's our ethical duty to scrutinise them. What changes in our minds as a result is a necessary evil. I will maybe write a thread related to this.

Newsweek.

URL to the actual article?

Well then why stop there? We could expand the death penalty to any crime that carries more than ten years in prison because death is more humane.

10 years =/= life, as in life.

Even if we improved the system to the point that it only murdered one innocent person per decade instead of the current 30+(that we know of) it would still be unacceptable.

Not when we take into account the innocent people that either spend life in jail or else they are the victims of reoffenders. That 'one innocent person' will always be the elephant in the room whatever you do.

[Sceptic]

You have not given any proof that it is the logical conclusion of "leftism" as if such a thing exists.

It's the conclusion of a philosophy that people are not in control of their biological and social circumstances and that we should have mercy on people for where there circumstances lead them in life. This has a connection to what we can consider to be the materialism often associated with the 'left'. Materialism is often used e.g. to explain the circumstances that lead to a class-based system and sometimes justify the fact some people are impoverished based on the fact they were not in control of the circumstances which brought them there.

This is more prevalent with Marxism (and to a more sophisticated extent) but that kind of thinking influences centre-left ideology also. A right-winger might say, "poor people are not my problem: they are just lazy and made their own choices". In context of the discussion, they might say "criminals made their own choice so screw them!" There is much more to the whole thing still though, e.g. as we can see in my thread where I discuss subtle inconsistencies in both sides. If we continue the discussion, you will see there is much, much more to be rooted out - it goes way beyond than individual thinking and can become truly disturbing to even think about.

1. MRI scan is meant to check abnormal brain activity. Then psychologists and neuroscientists work together to explain that abnormal brain activity and find solutions to it.

Yes but what evidence is there as per the effective reliability of using these scans with let's say, 95% + accuracy? They have to be extremely accurate to let rapists, murderers and molesters back out on the street.

1a. That implies that the system we use is purely rehabilitational which is false. When rehabilitation is done in the US, it is not done correctly and is often times done harshly increasing the amount of reoffenders. Furthermore 90% of all crimes in the US, according to an FBI report made in 2013, are financial related and if we coincide this with your assertion that 50% of all offenders reoffend then about 40%, and I'm being generous here, 40% of all crimes made by reoffenders are financial based. What does this mean? Well a purely rehabilitational system would focus on making an offender become an upstanding member of society by helping them study, providing job employment assistance, providing psychological help, etc. The current system does none of these things.

Ok, but until there is such an example of a 'purer' rehabilitation system in place we cannot make the mistake of giving serious offenders benefit of the doubt. I am all for this system of rehabilitation for lesser offences meanwhile, however.

And you cannot be 100% certain that capital punishment will lead to a lower crime rate. In fact there's evidence that shows that states with no death penalties have lower homicide rates:

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence ... rder-rates

...

Death penalty countries have lower trust among citizens and in their government and are more likely to be onservative. The justice and prison system need to be reformed in order to gain an aspect of stability in everyday life.

1. You're talking about crime rates in general: I'm discussing reoffender rates specifically for serious crimes. I've already demonstrated that reoffender rates are more generally 50% which is totally monstrous if it's the same for child molesters - much, much worse than the stat that other user posted (the 2.5% of innocents put to death in America).
2. Out of those states and countries, which ones had a rehabilitation system for petty criminals to compliment swift capital punishment procedures like I describe?

2c. That would only further discourage pedophiles from alerting authorities for help and could potentially stop children who have been molested from also seeking help from authorities. When you know you're dad's going to die if you tell, you would want to shut your mouth. You have given offending pesos a good reason to prevent their victims from telling.

First, it's always hard for children to come forwards, mainly because of fear rather than anything else (what child really still loves and cares for a parent that would do that to them?). Second, if we assume your logic, well, molesters could simply tell their kid they'd be raped, beaten, tortured etc. That sounds much worse to me.

What stronger deterrent is necessary? They're going to be locked up for years in prison. And if they're not acting up, why should they be punished?

I don't care: someone who once committed a heinous offence has the memory of that action and as far as we know could be incentivised to act in such a manner once again. We can't ever truly consider that person to be 'normal' or 'rehabilitated' because the truth is we don't really know unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

[Oxymandias]

@Sceptic

You still have not given proof that a "right" or a "left" exists. You can't use the word your trying to define in your own definition.

It isn't a matter of accuracy since MRI scanners always give an accurate image of the brain. The issue is simply detail. Now that may seem implausible to you but think of it this way. What is the fundamental difference between an old camera and a new one? It certainly isn't how accurate the camera since it's not like if you shoot a picture of an apple with an old camera it'll suddenly disappear in the photo. Rather the difference is in how detailed the photo is, how similar the picture looks to the reality in which it is set. MRI scans always give an accurate image of how the brain looks like just like how cameras will always gives an accurate image of how say a bird or tree looks like. The difference between new and old MRI scanners is simply how more detailed or clearer they are in their depictions rather than their accuracy.

Now before you make assumptions I would also like to give another piece of information. That you don't need an MRI scanner that produces extremely detailed images to check for abnormal brain activity. Extremely detailed MRI scanners are only used by neuro-scientists and other researchers. Even MRI scanners used by doctors and hospitals aren't necessary to check for abnormal brain activity (though those are the most available and cheap ones). Recreational MRI scanners can be viable.

If you respond to my arguments, please respond to all my points. Quoting my arguments and then just responding to one of my points won't do you any favors in achieving debate with me. And to respond to the response that you did give, imagine if people thought this way in different other time periods: "Until there is an example democracy in place, we should just continue living under monarchies" "Until there is an example of racial equality, we should just continue segregation" "Until there is an example of gender equality, we should just continue sexism" "Until there is an example of agriculture, we should just continue hunting" "Until there is an example of hunting, we should all just continue to sit around and starve to death". If everyone had the same mentality you do now, there would never be an example because no one would bother trying to produce one. That's why we shouldn't wait for an example but create one.

1. That is due to the fact that there was no attempt to rehabilitate or help improve the life of the offender. I said this before and in the post you responded to but you refuse to acknowledge it.

2. I have no idea but I'm not going to back up your arguments for you.

1. You clearly have no idea how abusive relationships work. The abused in abusive relationships often still loves the abuser and cares for him/her despite being abused and many previously abused persons sometimes even miss or still love the abuser even after acknowledging that the abuser abused them.

2. That'll be the result of your ideas. If your system is put into place, molesters will tell their victims about what will happen to them if they tell and then the victims will shut up. This isn't my logic, it's yours. What I stated was against what you were saying. I also find it pathetic that you find abstract descriptions of NFSW subjects to be horrible. I also find it pathetic that you lost track of your own arguments and ended up coming up with an awful argument against your own point.

The point of rehabilitation is to prevent the offender from be incentivized to act that way again. That's the point. People who are about to commit crimes or can potentially commit more crimes have abnormal brain activity that differs from the norm. MRI scans can demonstrate this with perfect accuracy and with very little detail. You can find out easily whether or not the offender could be incentivized to act that way socially through extensive psychiatric records from that offender's psychiatrist and you can find links with issues the offender is dealing with to potential crimes. The method is stupidly easy and obvious.

[Sceptic]

You still have not given proof that a "right" or a "left" exists. You can't use the word your trying to define in your own definition.

In this context I have defined those terms in terms of the presence ('left') of or lack ('right') thereof of the materialist mindset and what can be considered the implications depending on the subsequent existence or negation of the same materialist mindset. This is not an all-encompassing definition as I share your belief that there is no black and white binary scale. However we both belong to the same human culture that is shaped by these very commonly accepted paradigms, therefore we are forced to adhere to the constraints in language during such a discussion.

The definition is not as idiosyncratic as you make out though (besides, you would always need to allow for some kind of subjectivity when it comes to this kind of use in language). That's because of the ramifications that the presence ('left') of or lack ('right') thereof of the materialist mindset has on collectivist ('left') vs. individualist ('right') thinking respectfully. Where you are correct is that one can (and should, for the sake of sanity) borrow from both modes of political thought as well as consider a wider array of alternatives.

If it answers your question, this thread is concerned primarily with the argument that capital punishment for certain offences is in fact the logical conclusion of certain premises found within materialist and collectivist thinking patterns. This was a bit of a mouthful though, so I instead chose to generalise and select the following title: 'Why it Makes More Sense for Leftists to Support Capital Punishment'. Let's be honest: the other title would not have made much sense to you prior to the context of our discussion.

If you respond to my arguments, please respond to all my points. Quoting my arguments and then just responding to one of my points won't do you any favors in achieving debate with me.

I didn't want the conversation to expand unnecessarily so I only chose what I felt to be the main points however if you don't feel I've done that, you may refer back to points left unaddressed.

It isn't a matter of accuracy since MRI scanners always give an accurate image of the brain.

But we are talking about a personality assessment or more specifically an affirmation of whether or not someone is likely to reoffend. Not just, the activity in the amygdala vs. the hippocampus for example (unless it could be demonstrated that such an overview would give us a clear, empirically viable overview of whether or not a person is likely to reoffend, which I still cannot see any cited evidence for). It's funny because now it seems that you are the one avoiding the question, not me!

Now that may seem implausible to you but think of it this way. What is the fundamental difference between an old camera and a new one? It certainly isn't how accurate the camera since it's not like if you shoot a picture of an apple with an old camera it'll suddenly disappear in the photo.

Well this is an odd comparison but ok, let's take it one step further: CCTV footage investigating a murder. The old camera is rubbish accuracy ('detail'): you zoom in on the murderer's face and what you get is super blurry and unrecognisable. You won't catch the killer with just that. The new camera is super high definition and shows you exactly what the killer looks like. You show the picture to the public and they are able to immediately identify the killer. If you're a detective, what footage are you going to use and prefer? I would say that this is an instance where your definition of 'accuracy' translates into what you refer to as 'detail'.

That you don't need an MRI scanner that produces extremely detailed images to check for abnormal brain activity.

I would certainly hope that in the case of considering a rapist or murderer parole we would be using only the best equipment money can buy for the sake of the vulnerable. This should include not just MRIs but medical examinations, official assessments, whatever else. Those are the only acceptable circumstances for parole in those instances.

The point of rehabilitation is to prevent the offender from be incentivized to act that way again. That's the point. People who are about to commit crimes or can potentially commit more crimes have abnormal brain activity that differs from the norm.

Typically, MRI scans are only used to evidence brain diseases, e.g. tumours. I have not seen any citations thus far evidencing abnormal brain activity in people who are about to commit crimes demonstrated with perfect accuracy as you say. As such I'm still waiting to see a reliable link.

You can find out easily whether or not the offender could be incentivized to act that way socially through extensive psychiatric records from that offender's psychiatrist and you can find links with issues the offender is dealing with to potential crimes. The method is stupidly easy and obvious.

People lie to psychiatrists and therapists all the time. These assessments just boil down to whether or not the self-professed mind reader likes the patient or not (in the exception of very easy to detect and uncontrollable schizophrenic outbursts which still may not necessarily mean the patient is guaranteed to unleash such an outburst on a human being) and that is essentially the extent to which our 'methodology' works. If scans and diagnostics were as reliable as you say not only would there be a zero reoffender rate but governments would be effectively and reliably assessing people without convictions to reduce criminal rates in the first place. This is not the case, so scans and diagnostics are not as reliable as you say they are.

If everyone had the same mentality you do now, there would never be an example because no one would bother trying to produce one.

The examples you talk about were first of all, introduced slowly when done efficiently and second, concerned e.g. with making sure every law abiding civilian had a right to vote in the government and laws that rule them, not making sure convicted child molesters had the right to parole opportunities so they could molest again (possibly). As such I don't think they are comparable. If I gave you a pill that would either cure you of baldness or kill you slowly and horribly, you would probably not think it worth the risk or else you'd want some kind of evidence - if not a voluntary human test subject then at the very least an animal or something. Would you cry out "fallacy!" in such an instance? I doubt it.

When it comes to rehabilitation, there probably will be ethically conducted simulation experiments as well as actual statistics from existing rehabilitation programs (e.g. where the offenders were carefully monitored for security purposes over a long period and without informing the offenders to ensure they would act as they would without being monitored). If you are to make an argument in favour of rehabilitation, those are the kinds of citations required.

1. That is due to the fact that there was no attempt to rehabilitate or help improve the life of the offender. I said this before and in the post you responded to but you refuse to acknowledge it.

My point is that no evidence is supplied here to isolate the stats as what I've described to be serious offenders (and more specifically serious offenders who did receive the kind of rehabilitation you describe). Your stats could include everyone from shoplifters to child molesters given the vagueness of the results supplied. That is not useful information at all.

2. I have no idea but I'm not going to back up your arguments for you.

Without that comparison, your citation doesn't mean anything because all you have are stats including everyone from shoplifters to child molesters in states with dire rehabilitation and comparing them to states with at best mediocre rehabilitation facilities and still with reoffending rates for who on earth knows what crime which I've already explained is totally unacceptable for any of the crimes I've described as 'serious'. It's your burden of proof to supply that comparison.

1. You clearly have no idea how abusive relationships work. The abused in abusive relationships often still loves the abuser and cares for him/her despite being abused and many previously abused persons sometimes even miss or still love the abuser even after acknowledging that the abuser abused them.

Yes, that's Stockholm Syndrome. My argument was that the Stockholm syndrome will be apparent regardless of the criminal retribution.

2. That'll be the result of your ideas.

No, in both cases the offender can scare the child into silence. In a world where child molesters get beaten, raped and defecated on in prison, they have a scarier story to shut up the Stockholm victim than in a world where child molesters face a swift, painless execution. In both cases the molester can even make up an even scarier story if they want, not to mention all the other manipulative tactics. The only way around this in both cases are sensitive and tactful child support networks as well as excellent detective agencies and supremely integrated community support facilities.

I also find it pathetic that you find abstract descriptions of NFSW subjects to be horrible.

Do you mean NSFW? And I don't know what you mean if so because I feel that I have not shied away from darker subject matter but rather covered all the necessary angles within the context of such a discussion.

I also find it pathetic that you lost track of your own arguments and ended up coming up with an awful argument against your own point.

As demonstrated, that was not the case. You would have to provide text-based quotations of such an instance occurring.

[Oxymandias]

@Sceptic

I'm glad we have reached an understanding. And I agree, although the other title may have been more interesting.

I already addressed what you left out.

1. This is why we would also hire psychologists along with neuroscientists in order for the neuroscientists to explain the current activity in the brain and for psychologists to study how this activity could potentially physically affect the criminal.

2. http://www.pnas.org/content/114/12/3222

Here is empirical evidence that brain scans can, with an uncanny level of accuracy, display brain activity that may encourage criminal behavior and increase the chance of re-offense. If you want a layman's overview, here's a link from the Guardian discussing it:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ntists-say

3. What question did I avoid? Your question was asking whether or not MRI scans are accurate not whether MRI scans are viable tools to scan for reoffense.

4. You just repeated what I already said and simply put it in another context and then state that this is an argument that accuracy and detail are the same thing. It doesn't even contradict my point. Nothing about it takes anything a step further.

5. How does that analogy support the argument that detail and accuracy are the same thing?

6. My analogy was just that, an analogy. A bad MRI scan wouldn't be blurry, it just wouldn't give a complete picture of the brain and all it's functions. The perfect MRI scan gives us a complete look at everything a person's brain has to offer and what's currently going on in a person's brain. However such an MRI scan doesn't exist and isn't necessary for this hypothetical legal system.

7. The issue is that it simply isn't necessary. Yes, you can have the best MRI scanner money can buy, but all you'll get is just extra trinkets that aren't necessary to check for abnormal brain activity. I don't know what in-house medical examinations and official assessments have to do with anything but you can also have that too if you want. Not like it'll affect anything.

8. I have given you a link.

9. Whether or not the criminal lies won't be the deciding factor of whether the criminal gets released but rather his brain activity. The only thing is that the criminal's records would also include the current issues the criminal's dealing with and the reasons for his actions, it will not be used as a way to determine whether or not the criminal has rehabilitated and please stop assuming that this is the case.

10. Brain scans aren't used like the way I described them because no one is aware of their potential, brain scans have only recently been displayed to have potential in regards to the prison system and even then, the position to use brain scans in the legal system is niche and controversial. Also I disagree with using brain scans to find out potential offenders before they offend. It simply sounds totalitarian and punishing people before they offend using brain scans is simply thought crime.

11. Apparently I am advocating for immediate reform despite not saying such a thing at all and apparently I am advocating for releasing all child molesters from prison. Don't put words in my mouth and don't make such ridiculous assumptions.

12. They are comparable because in both cases, these people each advocated for something that was thought to be completely impossible and had no real world example to begin with. Furthermore, the examples weren't just fights for greater freedom but were moral fights. Democracy is just as much as a fight for freedom as it is a fight for justice, abolition of slavery was just as much as a fight for freedom as it is a fight for justice, gender equality was just as much as a fight for freedom as a fight for justice, legal reform is just as much as a fight for freedom as it is a fight for justice. Yes, these fights were risky, but they were fights willing to fight for and that's what makes these fights necessary.

The issue is that there isn't any large scale rehabilitation programs with the goal of improving the life of the criminal to the extent of what I described similarly to how there wasn't any good examples of democracy until the US was founded.

13. Then neither of us have any useful information making any arguments against rehabilitation not working in vain. We don't have enough information to either defend or attack rehabilitation. We can only argue about the morality of it and about whether or not brain scans are viable ways to see whether or not criminals will reoffend. Your stats and my stats simply do not have enough information on them to make such an argument.

14. How is the burden of proof on me? You were the one who claimed that general reoffender rates are 50% and attributed this percentage to serious crimes (which is false). You must give me the rates of which serious criminals reoffend.

15. You stated that children don't tell because of fear, not because of Stockholm syndrome. You never even mentioned Stockholm syndrome once.

16. Yes it's a scary story and that's why we should save the children and rehabilitate child molesters instead of putting them through hell. If the child knows that the child molester will become a better person, instead of being beaten, raped, and executed, they'll come around and tell people because that would be the best choice. The only way around this is to make the prison system rehabilitation-centered rather than punishment-oriented.

17. You did not get my point at all

18. My argument was that by using capital punishment on pedos, you can give them a better story to tell to their victims to stop them from telling. You then, afterward, reinforced what I was saying and agreed with me. Basically, you undermined your own argument.

Me: 2c. That would only further discourage pedophiles from alerting authorities for help and could potentially stop children who have been molested from also seeking help from authorities. When you know you're dad's going to die if you tell, you would want to shut your mouth. You have given offending pesos a good reason to prevent their victims from telling.

Sceptic: First, it's always hard for children to come forwards, mainly because of fear rather than anything else (what child really still loves and cares for a parent that would do that to them?). Second, if we assume your logic, well, molesters could simply tell their kid they'd be raped, beaten, tortured etc. That sounds much worse to me.

And here, not only do you agree with me, you also give a stupid justification and leverage on "saving the children" rather than the fact that children won't tell authorities that they're being abused.

[ccdan]

People who are about to commit crimes or can potentially commit more crimes have abnormal brain activity that differs from the norm. MRI scans can demonstrate this with perfect accuracy and with very little detail. You can find out easily whether or not the offender could be incentivized to act that way socially through extensive psychiatric records from that offender's psychiatrist and you can find links with issues the offender is dealing with to potential crimes. The method is stupidly easy and obvious.

This one of craziest claims I have come across regarding neuroimaging and psycho stuff. Total pseudoscientific nonsense! MRI scans can't be used to "detect" a single so called "mental illness" (which are really made-up labels by a bunch of crooks), let alone predict future behavior. Like all of psychiatry, the field of neurology concerned with the brain, got out of control and its members are spreading lots of false or misleading information. There's desperate need for control and rigorous scientific standards in every field that claims to work with science, as there are way too many crooks and charlatans trying the fool the masses with their pseudoscientific idiocies!

[Oxymandias]

@ccdan

I've literally given proof of this being the case. I suggest you read the post above you and not make assumptions about the validity of my point.

[ccdan]

I've literally given proof of this being the case. I suggest you read the post above you and not make assumptions about the validity of my point.

You "literally" don't even understand what you have given.... you just rushed to reproduce some very lame and misleading headlines that have nothing in common with the actual study (which is a pseudoscientific joke anyway) - which is all proof that the freedom of the press is a huge mistake!

This is you "extraordinary" claim:

2. http://www.pnas.org/content/114/12/3222

Here is empirical evidence that brain scans can, with an uncanny level of accuracy, display brain activity that may encourage criminal behavior and increase the chance of re-offense. If you want a layman's overview, here's a link from the Guardian discussing it:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ntists-say

This what the actual study says:

For one thing, our capacity to classify participants’ mental states depended on the collection of brain data at the time of a potentially criminal act. Obviously, in most cases, when someone is committing a crime they are not doing so while inside a scanner. We do not know whether it is possible, even in principle, to classify a person’s mental state at a time that precedes the collection of brain data by minutes, hours, days, or even years, as is necessary in criminal trials. As it stands, our classifier represents a proof of concept, and not yet a usable tool.

For another thing, our classifier’s ability to predict the mental-state category of our participants was entirely dependent on our ability to classify the mental states of the participants in the “training” dataset without appeal to brain data. That is, our ability to classify on the basis of brain data was parasitic on our ability to conclude that, for instance, a participant who chose to carry the suitcase when only one suitcase was offered to him knew that he was carrying contraband. That conclusion was not reached through a study of his brain activations but, instead, through the commonsense interpretation of human behavior so familiar from everyday life.

So basically the experiment was about identifying two separate mental states: one when acting knowingly/intentionally and one when acting "recklessly" - which has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of prediction of future behavior which you suggested(on the contrary, they warn against such crazy conclusions).

The experiment was however nonsensical, incoherent, illogical, pseudoscientific. These idiots intentionally create ridiculously complicated scenarios in order to test very simple ideas - so that they can confuse and fool those unfamiliar with scientific research.