ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th September 2017, 11:02 AM   #121
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,811
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
While you don't want personal emotions interfering in the judicial process, the judiciary should reflect, in general, the mores of the electorate. Otherwise punishments wildly out of line with public viewpoint will cause a lack of confidence and trust in the criminal justice system.

Sometimes that's a good thing, when the "mores of the electorate" and "public viewpoint" consider, for example, enslavement of an entire ethnic group based solely on the colour of their skin to be not just a moral and social good, but a moral and social necessity.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 11:17 AM   #122
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,849
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
First, you have to define "justice". It's a far too nebulous a concept for this sort of attempt at argument by sound/text bite. What does "justice" mean? Looking throughout history, it has meant very very different things to different people.

"Seeing justice done" can mean anything depending on what a particular group of people feels like deciding it means.

It can mean letting a college-age rapist off with a slap on the wrist because negatively affecting his entire career for a "youthful mistake" wouldn't be "true" justice.

It can mean lynching a black teenager for "giving sass" to a white woman.

It can mean cutting off the hands of thieves, publicly flogging rape victims, and beheading blasphemers.

It can mean imprisoning recreational drug users and sexual minorities who have committed no harm to any other person because they're a "moral danger" to the over-culture.

It can mean exterminating all members of a particular minority ethnic and religious group because the majority believes them responsible for a failed economy and all the evils and ills of society.

It can also mean persecuting people falsely accused of a crime because a particularly vocal subset of society is too enamoured of conspiracy theories and emotionalist principles like "always believe" to believe the demonstrable facts of a case.

It can mean forcibly re-aquiring escaped and liberated slaves, returning them to their "owners", and fining or jailing those who help slaves escape their captivity.

It can mean knowingly convicting, imprisoning, and executing innocent people to appease the masses, especially when the true perpetrator of a crime is known to be untouchable.

It can mean hordes of vigilantes assaulting and murdering innocent people because they don't believe that the authorities have done "true" justice, or are simply taking too long to "see justice done".

All of these have been justified on the basis of "seeing justice done" and making society feel safer, regardless of whether there was true justice involved,

When you base "justice: on feelings and majority consent, it can mean anything depending on what the dominant cultural force decides it means. It can be based on religion, on conspiracy theories, on pseudo-science, on the whims of a particular ethnic majority. This makes society demonstrably less safe; especially if you happen to be an "undesirable" or unsympathetic minority.

The only legitimate purpose of a criminal justice system should be to protect society from directly and rationally measurable physical and financial harm resulting from force and fraud, enact restitution to victims when possible, and rehabilitate criminals so that they are able to be come responsible, productive members of society to the extent possible. Once you bring in the notion of feelings, that all gets thrown right out the window, and at that point, anything goes.
You're missing the question. Reread your last paragraph. Now answer the question why about those.

There is no reason for having a just society rather than an unjust society beyond 'because we want to'. My assumption is that we want something because it makes us happy.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 11:23 AM   #123
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,811
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
There is no reason for having a just society rather than an unjust society beyond 'because we want to'. My assumption is that we want something because it makes us happy.

That's just evasive post-modern relativism. You still haven't defined what you mean by "justice". And in any case, it's still not even accurate.

What makes people happy is feeling physically and mentally safe and having their worldview remain unchallenged; justice doesn't enter the picture.

Eliminating anyone not exactly like them would accomplish the same thing, with a lot less moral complexity, which is why it's so popular with so many groups, especially fanatically religious groups. The fact that so many people refer to parts of that process as "justice" should tell you something.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 11:23 AM   #124
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,593
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Sometimes that's a good thing, when the "mores of the electorate" and "public viewpoint" consider, for example, enslavement of an entire ethnic group based solely on the colour of their skin to be not just a moral and social good, but a moral and social necessity.
If a majority of your electorate believes that, then you have bigger problems than just your judiciary. And the long term solution will be in defeating those ideas, so that supporting slavery becomes a fringe minority position.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 11:43 AM   #125
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,849
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
That's just evasive post-modern relativism. You still haven't defined what you mean by "justice". And in any case, it's still not even accurate.

What makes people happy is feeling physically and mentally safe and having their worldview remain unchallenged; justice doesn't enter the picture.

Eliminating anyone not exactly like them would accomplish the same thing, with a lot less moral complexity, which is why it's so popular with so many groups, especially fanatically religious groups. The fact that so many people refer to parts of that process as "justice" should tell you something.
It's considerably older than post-modernism. Aristotle: all things aim at some good. He couldn't get any further back than that when questioning 'why'.

Why is a just society more desirable than an unjust society? So far you have listed effects of having a just society, but you haven't explained why those effects are desirable. You have listed undesirable effects of having an unjust society, but you haven't explained why they are undesirable.

You can try claiming 'it's self-evident' but that is truly an evasion.

We want justice because we find it good, and we want that. There's nothing below that. Everything humans do we do because of desire. If you're expecting cosmic truths and inherent but ineffable good to be the underlying reasons for things you are in the wrong universe.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 11:51 AM   #126
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,811
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Why is a just society more desirable than an unjust society? So far you have listed effects of having a just society, but you haven't explained why those effects are desirable. You have listed undesirable effects of having an unjust society, but you haven't explained why they are undesirable.

And you still haven't defined "just".
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 11:55 AM   #127
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,849
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
And you still haven't defined "just".
I don't think I need to define a thing when you're the one trying to make a case for why we should want that thing. We can use your definition. It doesn't really matter what definition you use: you still can't explain why it is desirable any more fundamentally than it's desirable because we like it.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 01:05 PM   #128
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,811
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I don't think I need to define a thing when you're the one trying to make a case for why we should want that thing. We can use your definition. It doesn't really matter what definition you use: you still can't explain why it is desirable any more fundamentally than it's desirable because we like it.

I'm not going to sit here and argue over what the definition of "is" is. If you want to play those games, BobTheCoward is generally up for it.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 01:32 PM   #129
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,849
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
I'm not going to sit here and argue over what the definition of "is" is. If you want to play those games, BobTheCoward is generally up for it.
You are the one who quoted me and said I was incorrect to suggest justice is something we want because it makes us happy. I am perfectly content with that as being sufficient motivation. You insisted that's not correct, but you cannot provide a different motivation.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 10:59 AM   #130
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,267
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
I'm not going to sit here and argue over what the definition of "is" is. If you want to play those games, BobTheCoward is generally up for it.
Think you are being unfair with that comment. You haven't supplied a definition of just society just said that TragicMonkey's usage is not supportable, he's responded with what he asserts is his support and asked you to define what you mean by a just society. Until you provide your definition there is no way to progress your discussion.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 11:28 AM   #131
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,811
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You are the one who quoted me and said I was incorrect to suggest justice is something we want because it makes us happy. I am perfectly content with that as being sufficient motivation. You insisted that's not correct, but you cannot provide a different motivation.

Nope, that's definitely not what I said. Yet more reason I'm no longer interested in continuing this.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Think you are being unfair with that comment. You haven't supplied a definition of just society just said that TragicMonkey's usage is not supportable, he's responded with what he asserts is his support and asked you to define what you mean by a just society. Until you provide your definition there is no way to progress your discussion.

I've been asking him to provide a definition since this started, which he's flatly refused to do, and I explained why that's not even really a useful word given the wide range in definitions possible depending on context. I've given a clear and simple explanation of my position on the subject about 11 posts ago, everything since then has been semantic quibbling and intellectually-lazy post-modernist relativism which I'm not interested in hashing over for the millionth time.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 11:45 AM   #132
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,740
Vixen appears to have departed the stage after her nonsense was exposed for what it is. However, as an illustration of the point that everyone else in the thread has been making, this is what happens when a murderer is sentenced to life:

Quote:
A man who "savagely" murdered a college student at a beauty spot has been jailed for a minimum of 31 years.
Mark Buckley, 52, killed 18-year-old Ellen Higginbottom in a "chilling" and "sexually motivated pre-meditated" attack in June at Orrell Water Park in Wigan, Greater Manchester.
Note the 31 years, Vixen. That is the period set by the judge before the murderer is eligible to apply for parole. Note that 31 years is not 6 years. It never has been, and never will be, showing once more that this is utter poppycock:

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
........ All prisoners should be allowed to apply for it after a set number of years (in the UK this is iirc six years into a life sentence).........
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Last edited by MikeG; 14th September 2017 at 11:48 AM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 12:06 PM   #133
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,849
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Nope, that's definitely not what I said. Yet more reason I'm no longer interested in continuing this.




I've been asking him to provide a definition since this started, which he's flatly refused to do, and I explained why that's not even really a useful word given the wide range in definitions possible depending on context. I've given a clear and simple explanation of my position on the subject about 11 posts ago, everything since then has been semantic quibbling and intellectually-lazy post-modernist relativism which I'm not interested in hashing over for the millionth time.
Again, I'll use your definition of justice. I can't quote it bc I'm on my phone. Use THAT definition.

My question is: why is justice desirable? My answer to that is because it makes us happy. You haven't provided an answer to that, but you have told me mine is wrong.

You can define a thing any way you want, but asking why you want that thing isn't dependent on the definition. I want X because.... You don't have to define X to talk about motivations for wanting it.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 12:08 PM   #134
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,849
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Think you are being unfair with that comment. You haven't supplied a definition of just society just said that TragicMonkey's usage is not supportable, he's responded with what he asserts is his support and asked you to define what you mean by a just society. Until you provide your definition there is no way to progress your discussion.
Not quite. I don't CARE about the definition of justice, I'm interested in why people think we want it. I say we want it because justice makes us happy. There have been no other suggestions, only repeated definitions.

I'm asking WHY justice, not WHAT justice.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 02:00 PM   #135
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,811
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Again, I'll use your definition of justice. I can't quote it bc I'm on my phone. Use THAT definition.

I did, you didn't like it. This is just more intellectually-dishonest argumentation.

Quote:
My question is: why is justice desirable? My answer to that is because it makes us happy. You haven't provided an answer to that, but you have told me mine is wrong.

No, I didn't, more dishonesty.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I'm asking WHY justice, not WHAT justice.

It's impossible to say Why without knowing What. That's just more dishonesty.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 02:08 PM   #136
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,849
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
I did, you didn't like it. This is just more intellectually-dishonest argumentation.




No, I didn't, more dishonesty.




It's impossible to say Why without knowing What. That's just more dishonesty.
Are you saying you cannot explain why your definition of justice is desirable? Not my definition. Yours.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 04:25 PM   #137
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,849
Okay, I'm back at a large screen. Here is what luchog posted earlier:

"The only legitimate purpose of a criminal justice system should be to protect society from directly and rationally measurable physical and financial harm resulting from force and fraud, enact restitution to victims when possible, and rehabilitate criminals so that they are able to be come responsible, productive members of society to the extent possible. "

Let's take that as a definition of justice, okay?

Now, why is that desirable? Why is that better than the opposite? Why do human beings want those things? Why do we want to protect, restitute, rehabilitate..those things?
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 04:29 PM   #138
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,923
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
It's you who cocked-up, Vixen. You have made more than one erroneous claim about eligibility for parole in a life sentence, then you've straight-out lied about what I said, and about what you said. Never mind needing a white knight, you are behaving like the black knight. Carry on claiming victory, when all around can see you are flat-out wrong, and have lied.
I refer to my earlier post. In particular, the government's own webpage.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 04:31 PM   #139
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,923
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
[ citation required ]


You never said "average". Your said:

"set" means fixed, IOW, you claimed that everyone could apply for parole in six years, not on average.


That's a lie. MikeG never claimed that. He just said:

i.e., he contradicted your claim that everyone could apply for parole in six years. Some may be able to apply earlier, and others only later. IIRC, the various verdicts of the ECHR on this matter - not only against the UK but also against the Netherlands - strongly suggest that the tariff may not be longer than 20 years.

At least it's for all to see from your own links that you're wrong. You even claimed the Home Secretary is the only one to set the tariff, while quoting a wiki page that clearly says that that was struck down by the ECHR in 2003 and is now in the hands of the sentencing judge.

Do read my post again, carefully. In particular, the government's own webpage.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 04:33 PM   #140
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,923
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Here's your claim, Vixen.

Back this crap up or withdraw it and apologise. I say again, no one is allowed to apply for parole until their tariff period, determined by the judge, expires.
Again, please refer to the government's own webpage.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 04:38 PM   #141
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,923
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
The average time spent in prison by lifers in the UK is 17 years, not 9. And people don't apply for parole three years before their tariff is up either, you're posting an awful lot of nonsense in this thread.

https://fullfact.org/crime/how-long-...-serve-prison/
That is not what wikipedia says re life sentence. It says it used to be a long time, but these days the average is 'nine years'. An average is the sum divided by X (the total number).

The government's own webpage as I quoted here, says very plainly a lifer is automatically eligible for parole three years from the release date (whether they get it or not is down to the merits). and the government makes the application for you. One doesn't even need to lift a finger.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 04:42 PM   #142
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,923
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Vixen appears to have departed the stage after her nonsense was exposed for what it is. However, as an illustration of the point that everyone else in the thread has been making, this is what happens when a murderer is sentenced to life:



Note the 31 years, Vixen. That is the period set by the judge before the murderer is eligible to apply for parole. Note that 31 years is not 6 years. It never has been, and never will be, showing once more that this is utter poppycock:
The fact that some guy in the newspaper gets 31 years, and another, a whole life tariff, doesn't change the fact, the average lifer only serves nine years.

We were talking about lifers, by the way.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 11:09 PM   #143
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,740
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The fact that some guy in the newspaper gets 31 years, and another, a whole life tariff, doesn't change the fact, the average lifer only serves nine years.

We were talking about lifers, by the way.
Yes, we are talking about lifers, as in this case. This guy has been sentenced to life, with a minimum period in gaol of 31 years. All specified by the judge. And no, we were NOT talking about average (and even on that, as you've been shown, you were totally wrong). Your claim (which everyone can read so it makes you look pretty silly when you try to pretend it is something different) was that lifers could apply for parole after 6 years. That is just bollocks, even if you pretend it is the average situation, rather than what you wrote which was that it was, in effect, the universal situation.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 11:55 PM   #144
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,590
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I refer to my earlier post. In particular, the government's own webpage.
That doesn't support your initial claim that all prisoners sentenced to life are eligible for parole in 6 years

edited to add.....

Heck, it doesn't even support the "lifers serve on average 9 years" claim...

The whole quote from wikipedia...

Quote:
Presently mandatory lifers serve an average of 14 years and for other lifers the average has been in decline and now stands at nine years
The average for those who have a non-mandatory life sentence is 9 years - presumably for less serious offences and it's not clear to what extent sentences in these cases have been reduced on appeal or commuted.

Then again, the Wiki article contradicts itself.....

Quote:
In England and Wales, the average life sentence prisoner serves around 15 years before being paroled, although those convicted of exceptionally grave crimes remain behind bars for considerably longer

Last edited by The Don; 15th September 2017 at 12:07 AM.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 11:58 PM   #145
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,552
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
.....
Releasing Van Houten also seems cost effective. I don't think keeping old people in prison decades after they have changed their dangerous tendencies has any deterrent effect on the young people who commit the vast majority of crime.
As a practical matter, I'd like to know what happens to her if she's paroled. She has no money, no income, no job, no skills, no work history, no credit history. Even an ordinary person her age could have trouble finding work. Can she rent an apartment? Get a driver's license? She may not even have valid ID. What's she supposed to do? Maybe the decent thing would be to move her to some kind of halfway house, where she'd be supervised and spend her nights, but she could adapt to the free world in stages. Handing her a bus ticket at the prison gate might really be crueler than keeping her inside.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 12:19 AM   #146
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,590
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
As a practical matter, I'd like to know what happens to her if she's paroled. She has no money, no income, no job, no skills, no work history, no credit history. Even an ordinary person her age could have trouble finding work. Can she rent an apartment? Get a driver's license? She may not even have valid ID. What's she supposed to do? Maybe the decent thing would be to move her to some kind of halfway house, where she'd be supervised and spend her nights, but she could adapt to the free world in stages. Handing her a bus ticket at the prison gate might really be crueler than keeping her inside.
Yes, being dumped outside the prison gates to fend for herself would be a problem.

In some countries, consideration of what happens after release would be part of the parole hearing. If the potential parolee doesn't have suitable arrangements and/or will have significant difficulties adjusting post parole then they may not be released. Then again it's likely that if the parole system considers these things then rehabilitation services would have been in place in prison and a support network would be in place for parolees.

In van Houten's case, it is possible that as a very high profile individual, she is likely to have support in place from the kinds of people and organisations who have been campaigning for her parole ?
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 01:49 AM   #147
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,127
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That is not what wikipedia says re life sentence. It says it used to be a long time, but these days the average is 'nine years'. An average is the sum divided by X (the total number).

The government's own webpage as I quoted here, says very plainly a lifer is automatically eligible for parole three years from the release date (whether they get it or not is down to the merits). and the government makes the application for you. One doesn't even need to lift a finger.
Wikipedia is wrong about the average for all lifers, although nine years may well be the average for non mandatory life sentences, ie, those for crimes less serious than murder.

And no a lifer is not eligible for parole three years from the release date, whatever that is even supposed to mean. Three years before the minimum tariff is up a prisoner will be contacted to remind them to get legal representation, get their papers in order etc because they will be due for a parole hearing in three years. They do not become eligible for parole three years before the minimum tariff is served.
Strawberry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 03:05 AM   #148
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,425
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I refer to my earlier post. In particular, the government's own webpage.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Do read my post again, carefully. In particular, the government's own webpage.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Again, please refer to the government's own webpage.
Note the lack of a link to "the government's own webpage" in all of Vixen's posts.

ETA: there was one in an ETA that I missed. Still, she's lying about the contents thereof.

Note also that Vixen has been lying, and continues to lie, about her own words as well as MikeG's words.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

Last edited by ddt; 15th September 2017 at 03:12 AM.
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 03:11 AM   #149
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,425
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Vixen appears to have departed the stage after her nonsense was exposed for what it is. However, as an illustration of the point that everyone else in the thread has been making, this is what happens when a murderer is sentenced to life:



Note the 31 years, Vixen. That is the period set by the judge before the murderer is eligible to apply for parole. Note that 31 years is not 6 years. It never has been, and never will be, showing once more that this is utter poppycock:


And fully expect this guy to appeal at the ECHR that the tariff is too long - the ECHR has repeatedly said it should not exceed 25 years - and some legal wrangling between the ECHR and the English courts.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 03:49 AM   #150
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,267
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I refer to my earlier post. In particular, the government's own webpage.
Has the website been updated because the link you provided earlier didn't support your initial claim?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 04:23 AM   #151
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,186
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You're missing the question. Reread your last paragraph. Now answer the question why about those.

There is no reason for having a just society rather than an unjust society beyond 'because we want to'. My assumption is that we want something because it makes us happy.
Maybe valuing happiness to the exclusion of everything else is not the right way to go? Maybe we simply need to define what "justice" is. I believe I've said already that to me, the purpose of the justice system is to make society safer. Happiness is not a factor; that's for a different system.

Now, does safety trump all other considerations? No, of course not. But it is primary. So how do we make society safer? Well, eliminating criminals sure works, but we can't do that for every crime. People make mistakes; sometimes grievous ones, and manage to become productive and orderly members of society again. It's not an easy question to answer, but going with a simplistic "if it makes people happy" is bound to result in abuses, as luchog noted.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 04:30 AM   #152
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,849
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Maybe valuing happiness to the exclusion of everything else is not the right way to go? Maybe we simply need to define what "justice" is. I believe I've said already that to me, the purpose of the justice system is to make society safer. Happiness is not a factor; that's for a different system.

Now, does safety trump all other considerations? No, of course not. But it is primary. So how do we make society safer? Well, eliminating criminals sure works, but we can't do that for every crime. People make mistakes; sometimes grievous ones, and manage to become productive and orderly members of society again. It's not an easy question to answer, but going with a simplistic "if it makes people happy" is bound to result in abuses, as luchog noted.
What is the purpose of making society safer?

Being safe makes people happy. You can't get away from it: everything people do is an attempt to make themselves happy. It's why we have justice, and every other thing we've invented. It's the fundamental motivation for all human activity. We simply disagree at times on what will achieve it, and of course people have different opinions on what happiness is.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 05:35 AM   #153
Octavo
Master Poster
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,980
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Do read my post again, carefully. In particular, the government's own webpage.
Hi Vixen,

You don't seem to have realised that on a forum like this, it is possible for people to scroll through the thread and read the entire thing in context.

I just wanted to let you know that is in fact possible and is why no one on this thread is buying your lies - because we can all read the exchange for ourselves, despite your disingenuous link to half-way through the conversation AFTER you had completely changed your claim without once acknowledging your initial failure.

I'm sure you don't care, but I believe everyone else on this thread has by now come to a conclusion about your general level of honesty and integrity.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 06:10 AM   #154
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,186
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
What is the purpose of making society safer?

Being safe makes people happy. You can't get away from it: everything people do is an attempt to make themselves happy.
I can absolutely get away from it. You're projecting your own values onto me and everybody else. The purpose of making society safer could be to make it more productive, or to consolidate the power of the ruling class, or to increase population, etc. You're treating your own value as if they're the only possible answer, but it isn't.

The purpose of making society safer is irrelevant to the question of what justice is or how it should work to reach that goal. By your logic, the purpose of eating is to make yourself happy, because staying alive means you can be happy, but that's just nonsense. The purpose of eating is to stay alive (or if you want to be pedantic, to not be hungry anymore).

People have different goals, TM. Happiness is only one of them.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 06:45 AM   #155
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,849
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I can absolutely get away from it. You're projecting your own values onto me and everybody else. The purpose of making society safer could be to make it more productive, or to consolidate the power of the ruling class, or to increase population, etc. You're treating your own value as if they're the only possible answer, but it isn't.

The purpose of making society safer is irrelevant to the question of what justice is or how it should work to reach that goal. By your logic, the purpose of eating is to make yourself happy, because staying alive means you can be happy, but that's just nonsense. The purpose of eating is to stay alive (or if you want to be pedantic, to not be hungry anymore).

People have different goals, TM. Happiness is only one of them.
Why do you want society to be more productive? Why do you want to increase the population? Why do you want to remain alive? If those things made you unhappy would you do them?

And yes, the ultimate purpose of eating is to be happy. If you have a stomachache so eating makes you miserable do you eat?
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 06:49 AM   #156
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,186
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Why do you want society to be more productive? Why do you want to increase the population? Why do you want to remain alive?
For a variety of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with happiness.

Quote:
If those things made you unhappy would you do them?
You might if you had a good reason to.

You really do seem completley unable to fathom the idea that others may have different perspectives, values and goals from yours, and when the idea makes it through your bubble, you react pretty badly to it. Why is that?

Quote:
And yes, the ultimate purpose of eating is to be happy. If you have a stomachache so eating makes you miserable do you eat?
Not having pain is not synonymous with being happy. You are being ridiculous. Animals eat, even those that have no concept of happiness. Eating is utilitarian, even though we've managed to make it more than that in some instances.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 07:34 AM   #157
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,849
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
For a variety of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with happiness.
I'm suggesting that there are layers of reasons behind everything, and the bottom layer is the pursuit of happiness.


Quote:
You really do seem completley unable to fathom the idea that others may have different perspectives, values and goals from yours, and when the idea makes it through your bubble, you react pretty badly to it. Why is that?
Not at all. I'm quite aware others have different opinions. All I'm doing is explaining my own, in response to being asked. I'm not attempting to convert anyone to my opinion. I'm just trying to explain what I think.

I don't think I'm 'reacting badly'. Is not agreeing with other people reacting badly? I'm not insulting anyone, I haven't told other posters they are speaking 'nonsense' or 'being ridiculous' or accused them of various unpleasant motives.


Quote:
Not having pain is not synonymous with being happy. You are being ridiculous. Animals eat, even those that have no concept of happiness. Eating is utilitarian, even though we've managed to make it more than that in some instances.
I'm in agreement with Nietzsche there, who once characterized happiness as a misplaced gratitude for having good digestion. He himself had terrible digestive problems.

As for the animals, I think that's where humans differ. Animals act to survive, we act to be happy. That's why humans will kill themselves rather than suffer excessively, even from nonphysical suffering. Animals won't do that.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 07:39 AM   #158
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,186
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I'm suggesting that there are layers of reasons behind everything, and the bottom layer is the pursuit of happiness.
I know. And I'm arguing that this is wrong. When talking about humans, single-explanation theories are usually false, to begin with. Also, if you want to play the layers game, the bottom layer is reproduction, but that doesn't tell us much about why someone draw a graffiti on a wall.

Quote:
Not at all. I'm quite aware others have different opinions.
Then why do you think your answer is the only one that's possible? Why is it not possible for people to do things for reasons other than happiness?

Quote:
I'm in agreement with Nietzsche there, who once characterized happiness as a misplaced gratitude for having good digestion. He himself had terrible digestive problems.
Well, if one broadens a definition to universality, it's easy to explain everything with the word it corresponds to.

Quote:
As for the animals, I think that's where humans differ. Animals act to survive, we act to be happy.
I think you've made a distinction that doesn't exist. We do a lot of things for the exact same reason animals do, and a lot of it doesn't make us happy in the least. And plenty of people sacrifice their own happiness for other goals.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 11:48 AM   #159
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,849
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Then why do you think your answer is the only one that's possible?
I said I'm aware other people have other opinions. That doesn't mean I have to modify my opinion about other people. My opinion is that the fundamental motivation of all human activity is the pursuit of happiness--not just for those humans who share my opinion. Thinking that in no way impedes anybody else from having a different opinion. Agreeing that other people have other opinions in no way invalidates my own opinion.

Quote:
I think you've made a distinction that doesn't exist. We do a lot of things for the exact same reason animals do, and a lot of it doesn't make us happy in the least. And plenty of people sacrifice their own happiness for other goals.
I disagree. People are complex thinkers, and are willing to suffer unhappiness in pursuit of what they expect to be a greater happiness in the future. A human will endure a painful dental visit precisely because they know it will result in less pain and greater happiness in the future than if they didn't endure that temporary unhappiness. An animal will not do that--have you ever tried explaining to a cat that the vet visit, while unpleasant, will prevent worse unhappiness later?
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 07:49 AM   #160
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 10,379
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Studies show that psychopaths adapt well to prison. They rarely show the kind of distress normal prisoners exhibit.

I'll wager she has her own prison mafia going, and a nice little number in tobacco, cell phones and legal highs going. Not to mention a posse of butch thugs to protect her.
There must be a community fiction thread where posters take turns adding sentences to the story. Such a thread would be a highly suitable place for this whimsical post.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.