"I wouldn't wish it on my greatest enemies"...

A phrase that has clearly lost it's philosophical potency in much of society.

It's a very interesting concept to think of an act as being so vile that you wouldn't wish it on your greatest enemies. Even if the enemies are guilty of committing such an act.


There's just something wrong with being against murder or rape or physical abuse, and yet supporting the use of such acts against the guilty. It just seems so hypocritical. You aren't actually against murder or rape or physical abuse. You just reserve the right to use such force against those you deem "worthy" of such suffering.

It's easy to wish death or suffering on someone you do not know. It's easy to cast harsh judgement or deem someone a "monster" when you have only read about them from a news story.

If you say that acts like murder and rape are the pinnacle of depravity, how on earth can you justify using them in any circumstance?

The truth is that morals abandoned in times of inconvenience were never really morals in the first place. It is the fact that we practice compassion when it is difficult to do so that makes it so compelling.

No matter what anyone tells me, I know that compassion is a good thing. It is what keeps us from barbarism.

When we lose our compassion, we lose our humanity.

there may be one or two people who I would wish such a thing on ... but historically, those people are already dead ...

and no, they're not Repugniconvicts ...

I think this logic, taken to its extreme, would bar you from even jailing criminals. Imprisonment is, after all, quite horrible, even under the best of circumstances.

I'm not for raping prisoners, to be sure, but just the idea that a man should be allowed to die in prison rather than have the pleasure of spending his final days among his friends and family does not strike me as particularly barbaric, and considering the detestable nature of his crimes in making that decision does not either.

is abusive and disgusting. Our entire system tends to lean towards vengeance rather than justice.

Imprisonment should only be used as a means of protection.

Letting a man suffer his last days on earth in isolation from the ones he truly loves seems horrifically barbaric.

Let's say a man kills another, and without belaboring the scenario, it is clear he has no homicidal intent towards any other. He had a reason to kill this specific man, not a justified one, but a reason that makes it clear he is not really a danger to anyone else. He has murdered, but now that his victim is dead, he is no longer a threat.

What would you do with this man? Let him go? Isn't there some obligation to the victim himself, and those who cared for him, to see some kind of punitive action against the criminal? Or is the only concern whether the criminal is likely to reoffend?

Given the scenario as you presented it, if someone killed someone else, they had to make restitution to the victim's family in money, goods, or labor.

the man kills another because he feels wronged in some way that's unique to the situation with his victim. In other words, he's proven he reacts to specific stimuli with murder. The fact that nobody else is in that situation with him right now doesn't mean they won't be in the future. I think he might still be a danger.

It's like a guy killing his ex wife hostage because he found out she had an affair. It's unique to their relationship - he has those feelings only against her. But if that's how he reacts to being cheated on in a relationship, the state has an interest in keeping him off the field to protect other women who could potentially get into that situation with him.

that's why I can't really construct a good scenario to illustrate the concept. But what I am trying to do is separate the concept of rehabilitation from punishment. The idea is to show that punishment in itself is not an evil or barbaric concept, is not the same thing as vengeance, and can be deserved regardless of a person's likeliness to reoffend. I take the OP's failure to respond to the question to mean that perhaps I made my point, regardless of your valid criticism.

Now that doesn't mean that compensation isn't due. But that must be some sort of tangible payment.

Like I have said either in here or the lockerbie thread, suffering in prison is not compensatory.

If the guilty aren't punished, there is no justice. You seem to imply that if punishment isn't solely for the sake of protection, then it must be for vengeance. That's a simplistic view that ignores the concept of deterrence. Furthermore even if someone believes in punishment as a form of recompense, that still isn't the same thing as vengeance. Some actions should certainly have consequences, and sometimes that means expelling your last breath behind bars.

And guess what? rates of certain crimes are no lower in states that use capital punishment. So even the threat of death does little to deter crime.

The reason why you punish is to teach a person why their actions were wrong. The point of incarceration is to either rehabilitate, or detain for societies sake. Once someone is rehabilitated, they should be released. I know that's a hard concept to understand since we have all grown up in a world that glorifies damning the guilty, but it makes perfect sense.


"Furthermore even if someone believes in punishment as a form of recompense, that still isn't the same thing as vengeance."


Actually, that is still vengeance. Because you are punishing to obtain some sort of intangible goal. I'm sorry, but a victim doesn't gain the right to inflict harm on their offender. And that goes back to my original point of this thread.

You assume that just because the death penalty has been found by some studies to have little deterrent effect that imprisonment has no deterrent effect. Perhaps someday experience will grant you the wisdom of assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

And no, recompense is not the same thing as vengeance. You may not have noticed, but we do not allow victims to stone offenders to death in this country. Punishment is NOT simply for rehabilitation and it's not simply about "vengeance" as you keep pretending. Some crimes warrant people spending the rest of their life in jail and I'm reasonably sure that the premeditated murder of hundreds of people with malice fits that bill.

Victims are not allowed to stone their offenders to death because it's become unpopular. Now we simply hope that they get raped or murdered in prison. If you think I am speaking in hyperbole, I suggest you simply read responses from DUers in many of the crime threads in GD. They want blood.


There is a difference between wanting compensation, and wanting vengeance. That is obvious. But what you are suggesting has nothing to do with compensation. How is having a man rot away in prison compensational? How does that make any sense? What you are suggesting is vengeful thinking, Not recompense.

In order for something to compensatory, there must be an exchange from the offender and the victim. What is the victim getting from the offender if the offender is stuck in a prison cell? What is society getting from the offender? Getting sick satisfaction from the suffering of a human being isn't compensation, sorry.


And this isn't even diving into the concept that justice should benefit society as a whole. What good is done for society if a rehabilitated person is locked up in prison? What does that accomplish?

The answer is nothing. In fact, the argument could be made the it harms society.

When the guilty are punished it's not the same thing.

If I steal $1,000 from you it is wrong. If a court later takes $1,000 from me so they can return your stolen money that is right. And my punishment should be greater than that so there will be a deterrent.

Likewise if an act of violence is committed against me or a member of my family I expect them to be punished for it, at a level reasonably equal to or greater than the offense. The government acts in these cases on behalf of victims and their families. That way individuals don't normally take it upon themselves to enact revenge.

Clearly you do not know the difference between the two.

And to compare a 1,000 dollar judgement with something like the death penalty or prison rape is pretty absurd.


On the subject of punishment as "deterrent", it simply does not work. Especially with more serious crimes. Like I have said in this thread already, even the threat of death has not reduced the rate of certain crimes.

So you don't think keeping him in jail would have a deterrent effect?

Very interesting indeed.

An argument could be made that lesser crimes could be avoided by implementing deterrents. But on serious crimes like these, the individuals committing the crimes are in a much different mind set than someone robbing a house.

They are committing these crimes because of an ideology. They have come to terms with severity of their actions. The threat of punishment has little effect on them because they really do believe that they are doing the right thing.

This man is near death. I'm not sure that any crime disqualifies him from spending his last days on earth with loved ones. I just don't see how anyone could treat him with that level of hostility. It's as if he isn't human.

But your perchance for assuming things about subjects in which you are clearly ignorant is what I like most about you. Since you've strung yourself out quite well on this one, I'm going to enlighten you on a couple of things. Please show "compassion" and forgive me for doing so.

Here's what you DON'T know about Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. His diagnosis of having only "3 months to live" was given by an ordinary prison doctor, not a cancer specialist. Actual cancer specialists have questioned that diagnosis.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Ordinary-prison-GP--not.5592149.jp

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was a member of the Libyan intelligence service and it was his job to do what he did. Alleging that he did what he did out of ideology makes about as much sense as saying the CIA operatives that planned the Bay of Pigs invasion did so solely because they were anti-communists.

It was the mans job. He assumed the risk before hand and surely understood the consequences of such an act. So why on earth would you think that any measure of deterrent would be effective in this case?


My argument was made on the basis that he was terminal. If he is not, then my argument changes. Were you honestly trying to corner me with this evidence?

I feel like you think this entire thing is a game. Are we in some sort of competition? I must be in the dark.

Unlike you, I'm not going to pretend that I know what Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's motives were. But it's reasonable to assume that because he attempted to conceal his crimes, that he thought he would simply get away with it because he had the support of his government. So the deterrent in this case is actually quite strong because it shows that terrorists can't hide behind their borders and expect to walk free. And as I've already stated, he was greeted as a hero in his own country when he returned. If you don't think there's some measure of deterrence in preventing that situation, then I'm not sure there's any chance of having any type of reasonable discussion with you on that matter. But to be fair, I had no such expectation from you to begin with.

Here's your statement:

"This man is near death."

My point was you simply assume things to be true with very little actual knowledge of the circumstances in question. I've said it a number of times, but it's well worth repeating. Assumption is the mother of all fuckups. And once again, in your latest assumption, you do it again. Whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi is terminal or not is largely irrelevant. He has to be not only terminal, but within 3 months of death to even be considered for clemency under the Scottish rules. So what you don't know can fill volumes, yet you still make absolute statements of fact that are hardly facts.

Your feeling that I think this is a game is spot on. I find tremendous sport in challenging the assertions of those who reject all forms of reason. The difference between you and I is that I know it's a game, and more than that I know it's YOUR game. You started this entire thread by throwing out a ridiculous notion that you knew full well you would get challenged, and clearly you had no intention whatsoever in any sort of reasonable discussion but instead wanted to flaunt what you think passes for wisdom. Instead you have simply demonstrated your lack of any meaningful knowledge or experience. So don't fault me for playing your game better than you, and please don't insult my intelligence by pretending this isn't your little game.

But as in all games, there has to be an end, and I'm going to be the adult here and quit because I'll gladly concede that you're much more skilled in the art of ad nauseum than I am. Don't let that stop you from continuing though, and I'm sure you will.

Have a nice day.

I'm sure you don't honestly want me to have a nice day. That's simply a snarky remark that individuals make when they are attempting to express their superiority and that they have better things to do.

So go do whatever it is that makes better use of your time. I am not offended by that.

This isn't a game. I know that you think it's a game, but it really isn't. I know that you believe it's my "little game", but it truly is not. This isn't some trivial matter. It's really a matter of life and death. It's really telling that you think this entire thing is a game.

I just want to get this straight. You don't know the true motive, yet you are willing to suggest that harsh punishment is justified? That doesn't make any sense at all. Motive is an extremely important element. So by suggesting that you do not know his true motive, you've just admitted that you cannot possibly come to any strong conclusions on what he "deserves". Yet you've spent quite a good amount of time in here saying otherwise.



I don't think it's reasonable to assume anything when you are dealing with such serious matters. He could have concealed his crimes because he would rather not face the consequences. That doesn't mean that he wasn't prepared to face the consequences. It just means that he is not going to turn himself over voluntarily.

As far as the other part, I'm not entirely sure who you are trying to deter. The people who consider him a hero? Of what, glorifying his actions? How does that deter them from thinking him a hero?

If you never had any expectation of reasonable conversation, why did you start it in the first place? Do you often attempt discussions with people whom you think are incapable of reason? I surely don't. So either you get pleasure from talking to unreasonable people (which is weird), or you are lying and did expect a reasonable discussion. You know, it's okay to say that I am wrong without attempting to personally insult my intelligence.



You are right. I assumed that he was actually near death. I assumed that he was terminal. And I apolgize for doing that.




To you it is irrelevant. However, I think it is extremely relevant. I am not trying to discuss legal justification. I am talking about moral justification. I cannot believe that you haven't gotten that by now.

A $1,000 judgment is a form of retribution. So is a jail sentence. So is an execution. In most cases victims and/or their survivors would feel some form of justice had prevailed.

I didn't mention prison rape. You did.

You are wrong, deterrents certainly do work. I shall demonstrate:

I am tempted to offer negative observations regarding your character. DU civility rules prohibit sharing thoughts I currently have in mind. If I go ahead and post what I'm thinking I might get punished by being banned. I don't want to get banned so I am obeying the civility rules.

See? A deterrent is working right now, so your argument is easily defeated.

Have a nice day.

I understand that you think victims get pleasure from watching their offender suffer. I understand that you think that is retribution. And there is no doubt in my mind that some victims do get sick pleasure from watching their offender suffer.

The question is whether or not they should get emotional reward from watching a person suffer or die. Is that act justified? If is isn't, was it ever really retribution in the first place?

Oh so you DO have limits to the level of suffering you think is justified? If prison rape isn't justified, how is murder (capital punishment) justified? How is life imprisonment justified? At what level do you say "enough"?

If you are honestly trying to compare your need to vent your feelings about me with the act of murder, then I have nothing more to say to you because that is simply beyond all reason.

However can I hope to enjoy a meaningful life without the benefit of your omniscience? I shall sadly struggle on, deprived of this blessing.

The question is whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi "deserve(s)" clemency after murdering hundreds of people and spending only 8 years in jail. You seem to think he does for reasons you have poorly articulated. I don't share your opinion. That doesn't mean I think others don't.

But that's hardly for you to say, no?

And actually I love what you have to say. I'm quite amused by it, but then I find a cruel sense of amusement from those who pretend to be wise when clearly they are not. So by all means do continue.

You can disagree with what I have to say. But to suggest that I have not made my position clear or justified it is stupid. You disagree with my justification. That does not mean that my justification does not exist.

First of all, a least as many people disagree right here in your own thread. And even if you had unanimous consent on your original premise, that has nothing to do with whether or not you've articulated your position clearly.

Let me sum up your positions for you and you can tell me if I'm off base or not. Fair enough?

You assume that because deterrence is less than fully effective in some cases, it must be completely ineffective in all cases.

You assume that if imprisonment is not for "protection" then the only other possible explanation is "vengeance".

You deny even the existence of such principles as denunciation, consequentialism, and retributive justice.

You assume that because you don't agree with someone, they must be wrong.

If you disagree with my assessment, feel free to explain how it isn't accurate.

That wasn't my point to prove that I have everyone on my side. I actually never said that at all. You don't just disagree with my justification. You think that I have poorly articulated my justification.



I actually don't believe I ever said deterrent is never effective under any circumstance.



Yes I do. You are correct.



I do not deny the existence of those principles. What an absurd assumption to make.



No. I think you are wrong, therefore I disagree with you. In reality, disagreeing with someone means that you differ from their belief. You would only do that if you thought they were wrong.

Do you often disagree with people who you think are right?

and i'll confess, i've often opined that child rapists should take it in the ass with a telephone pole. my own daughter was murdered however and i didn't have to fight an urge to kill the woman who did it. it's easy for me to see that people are not supposed to kill people. there were two stories years back of child rape. one of the victims was only 6 months old. both of the victims were killed in the act. i guess that in my mind that is so bad that no punishment would be light enough. i have to say that because even having read and agreed with your post, i still feel as if these perps should take it up the ass with a telephone pole.

i'm not a barbarian. i'm human with one barbaric tendency.

Something I know all to well.

are out of it. At least that's how it used to be.

Now we have an entire society that screams for vengeance on behalf of the victims and justice be damned.

Say what you will, there are people who do deserve it.

They truly do deserve it.

Kick