The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[ulyssesSgrant]

Some people definitely think that the value of a death penalty is its punishment benefit. I don't really have much sympathy for that viewpoint.

No kidding some people think it, people are, well, humans after all.

Imagine you know an honest hard working married man, let's call him, not to get to personal, Mac. Some complete piece of human garbage breaks into Mac's house and rapes and kills his wife. Mac comes home from work minutes later, he sees the door broken down and finds her inside, dead.

He is outraged. He wants revenge. He knows the state, if they find this perpetrator, will lock him up for life, but no death penalty. But like, this guy just did some of the most evil things imaginable, to his own beloved wife. He deserves to die for he did, Mac thinks to himself. What kind of a husband would just be content to do nothing, and leave it to the police? Mac considers chasing him, but then the lights go on, he has an idea.

"I know just what to do", he immediately sits down at his desk and logs into windows. There it is, the green icon with a big white X on it, up in the right hand corner of the screen. He double clicks it, up pops excel, he quickly opens a workbook called "effect_based_deterrence_matrix.xlsx",
yeah, it was in the "recently used" list. In it, cold hard facts and logic.

"It's time to calculate" he thinks to himself. He plugs in the variables, chance of being caught, benefit of the crime, predicted penalty, don't forget to carry the one, etc... It's a close call, but the numbers don't lie. It's going to be a pass, the numbers just don't add up. "Can't bring her back anyway", he thinks to himself. Somewhat relieved, Mac picks up the phone and calls the police. He didn't really want get his hands messy anyway.

A modern day hero? Nah, I'll take Mattie Ross.

 

[El_Machinae]

Usually in these discussions I ask people for governments that impose the punishments that they are asking for, and then I just asked them if they would prefer Norway's recidivism rate

Xpost: the post above mine deserves hearts. Not mere 'likes'.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

@TheMeInTeam that is a direct reference to the "If you have half..." in your post. If you actually had a way to respond to even a trivial fraction of the crimes committed every day in very short order there'd be nothing but convicts.

If you have nothing but convicts, the laws aren't a good representation of what people in that society actually value.

"It's time to calculate" he thinks to himself. He plugs in the variables, chance of being caught, benefit of the crime, predicted penalty, don't forget to carry the one, etc... It's a close call, but the numbers don't lie. It's going to be a pass, the numbers just don't add up. "Can't bring her back anyway", he thinks to himself. Somewhat relieved, Mac picks up the phone and calls the police. He didn't really want get his hands messy anyway.

Mac would have a harder time finding the guy before the police, unless the guy is still around when he returned home.

That aside, even the part before this is implausible. A visceral emotional reaction balloons the value of revenge, at least perceived value in the short term.

There's also some sentencing precedent to lesser sentences for retaliation of this nature. I forget the country, but there was one where a man's child was raped and killed. He tracked down the person who did it and killed him. IIRC he was given a year or two in prison for doing that.

While that's a price Mac might pay willfully, in a moment like Mac's you have non-rational utility standards. This is also a tiny sliver of a percent of crimes/potential crimes committed. I'm not sure I'd even have a problem with it if the system didn't deter someone in Mac's situation. The whole point of a deterrence system is not to fail Mac and present him with that situation in the first place.

 

[Lexicus]

A modern day hero? Nah, I'll take Mattie Ross.

Yeah, I forgot that loving one's enemies and forbearing revenge are only important moral principles when your enemies are conservatives

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Yeah, I forgot that loving one's enemies and forbearing revenge are only important moral principles when your enemies are conservatives

Haha, well, it's a fair point. I'm only human. In my most sober moments I really think we need to all love each other, but man do I love a good revenge story.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, so do I, of course, but it's a pretty barbaric organizing principle for a legal system.

 

[Broken_Erika]

You mean it isn't like Oz?

So is this what prison looks like?

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Well, so do I, of course, but it's a pretty barbaric organizing principle for a legal system.

In some respects it's barbaric. But I think the personal aspect of it is something lost in our legal system. For many crimes, justice has always been personal. There isn't an objective answer when it comes to things like sentencing and crimes. There is something deeply unsatisfying about the state carrying out justice for interpersonal crimes. I think bringing the wronged party into the equation is something desperately needed.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In some respects it's barbaric. But I think the personal aspect of it is something lost in our legal system. For many crimes, justice has always been personal. There isn't an objective answer when it comes to things like sentencing and crimes. There is something deeply unsatisfying about the state carrying out justice for interpersonal crimes. I think bringing the wronged party into the equation is something desperately needed.

The alternatives are all bad.

Let's hypothesize that you are this 'wronged party.' I sentence the villain to five minutes with you. He's tied down, and here's a big stick, no legal repercussions. What are you gonna do?

Before you answer, let's put the shoe on a different foot...if it was me and I went to town and beat the guy to death with the stick would I be someone you would really want as a neighbor? What if I got a taste for it?

Then there's the more commonly supported idea for involving the wronged party. They get to just say "yeah, do that," and come away telling themselves that the blood isn't on their hands. I definitely don't approve of that. If someone thinks the only thing that can satisfy their needs is the death penalty than they need to be willing to look someone in the eye while they put a bullet in their forehead, not walk away saying that the nebulous 'they' executed someone.

 

[Farm Boy]

In the times we still execute people the thing that bothers me the most is that we squirrel it away and try to sanitize it with muscle relaxants.

Set up a gibbet in the aggrieved community and make everyone who stood for it have full view of the backstroke in all its cold, chalky, much less glamorous than the movies, glory.

It's sort of the point.

 

[metalhead]

All this harmony can't be free!

Freedom costs a buck-oh-five.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Rights belong to people, not rocks or chickens.

On what basis do you now assert that humans get rights but other species don't? Also, you just said rights come from "existence"... now you've shifted to saying rights come from humanity. Why? Says who? Wouldn't the PETA folks disagree with you? What makes humans so special that they get "natural" rights but no other life forms do? If its "cause god says so" then fine, say that, at least then your argument would make sense.

Its the argument in the Declaration of Independence.

OK but the Declaration of Independence explicitly states that rights are "endowed by their Creator", in other words god. So by invoking the Declaration of Independence, are you conceding that you're using "natural" rights as a euphemism for "God-given" rights? As I've already said, you can't cherry pick a "natural" or "inalienable" rights argument without also accepting the "endowed by God" part.

So is that really your argument? That you have a God-given right to own a gun?

 

[Lexicus]

So is that really your argument? That you have a God-given right to own a gun?

Come on, Jesus wrote it in the Bible in plain English! Get withe the program already!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Come on, Jesus wrote it in the Bible in plain English! Get withe the program already!

I think that was "another cheek" that you have a right to, not a gun to defend the first cheek with.

 

[Hygro]

Looks like fun... get Abathur involved and you've got a party!

 

[Lexicus]

I think that was "another cheek" that you have a right to, not a gun to defend the first cheek with.

"Yea, for you must have no fewer than three tactical attachments on thy AR-15, for those with fewer than three shall never enter my Kingdom."

 

[Farm Boy]

If I had to have a yatch-mouth and womb-brain I'd give her preseeent-arms! heels too.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

The alternatives are all bad.

Let's hypothesize that you are this 'wronged party.' I sentence the villain to five minutes with you. He's tied down, and here's a big stick, no legal repercussions. What are you gonna do?

Before you answer, let's put the shoe on a different foot...if it was me and I went to town and beat the guy to death with the stick would I be someone you would really want as a neighbor? What if I got a taste for it?

Then there's the more commonly supported idea for involving the wronged party. They get to just say "yeah, do that," and come away telling themselves that the blood isn't on their hands. I definitely don't approve of that. If someone thinks the only thing that can satisfy their needs is the death penalty than they need to be willing to look someone in the eye while they put a bullet in their forehead, not walk away saying that the nebulous 'they' executed someone.

It is always up to the victim if they want to participate. If they can't confront the person for any reason, or otherwise don't want to, that is fine. The conversations that are had do matter. I can't tell you what I would say in an abstract case, it's all about the specifics, and it varies person to person. The positive results from restorative justice are pretty hard refute. Victims are more satisfied, as are the offenders. Restitution compliance was higher among offenders, and they have considerably lower recidivism rates.

Of course the role the victim plays must be limited. Most people will acknowledge there must be upper and lower bounds. The point is, it matters how the victim feels about it, but I agree there must be some proportionality to it. People often object and say the punishment should be the same for the same crime. First of all, that isn't even close to being achieved in our current system, and secondly, no crime is the same, and thirdly, just, why? Once you realize there isn't an objectively correct prison sentence for a specific type of crime, you can better accept the victim's role in this.

As far as offenders deserving punishment, which was kind of the original thing brought up, @El_Machinae said he had no sympathy for that position. Well, I'm willing to defend that position. I don't think I support the death penalty because I don't trust the state to do it fairly or right, especially right now because discrimination and racial biases are well known and horrible.

None the less, I think many people do deserve punishments, and I think the reason they do is because they are morally responsible. It's not about free will, it's not about determinism. Sometimes someone does something really bad and they deserve a beat down for it. Not for the greater good, not because it's a deterrent, but because it's freaking just and right, and that in and of itself is enough. They did it and they did it on purpose and now they have a punishment coming for them. I believe that about as strongly as I believe anything else.

Maybe this is in contradiction, or at least tension, with some other positions I have, but I think I'd give those up over this one if I can't square em.

 

[Lexicus]

thirdly, just, why?

Why do you think? The view that the same crime ought to produce the same punishment isn't because people believe there is some objectively correct punishment for any given crime, it's to prevent obvious injustice, corruption, favoritism and so on in the legal system. Formally unequal justice is still easily within living memory for many people in the United States, and legal systems for millennia prior to that took fundamental inequalities between people as a bedrock organizing principle, so punishments were farcically unjust to the point that a noble might have to pay a small fine for murder where a slave would be mutilated for a petty theft.

The argument that no two crimes are really the same is a strong one and I think probably correct on some level but I think that any principle other than equal punishment for equal crime (within some bounds, the punishments don't necessarily need to be all literally identical) opens the system up to too much abuse.

None the less, I think many people do deserve punishments, and I think the reason they do is because they are morally responsible. It's not about free will, it's not about determinism. Sometimes someone does something really bad and they deserve a beat down for it. Not for the greater good, not because it's a deterrent, but because it's freaking just and right, and that in and of itself is enough. They did it and they did it on purpose and now they have a punishment coming for them. I believe that about as strongly as I believe anything else.

You're not actually defending that position here, just restating it a few times and then saying you believe it strongly.

 

[Berzerker]

On what basis do you now assert that humans get rights but other species don't?

Cuz rights are moral claims people have against other people

Also, you just said rights come from "existence"... now you've shifted to saying rights come from humanity. Why? Says who?

I didn't say they came from humanity, I said they only become relevant when there's more than 1 person around

OK but the Declaration of Independence explicitly states that rights are "endowed by their Creator", in other words god.

Nature's god, that which is responsible for existence. I think Jefferson and some of those folk were deists.

So by invoking the Declaration of Independence, are you conceding that you're using "natural" rights as a euphemism for "God-given" rights?

I dont object to the phrase, but "god" aint needed for these rights.

So is that really your argument? That you have a God-given right to own a gun?

You have the right to defend your self, guns are just weapons designed for that task.