TimB: "Male child molesters could have their nuts cut off. This might help them to not offend."If the alternative is life in an institution so they're not a danger to the public, I'm sure some would choose that option.
And would that be a cure, or just an eye-for-an-eye action that makes us feel better? If it’s done to change hormones, it might not be a perfect cure, as you don’t require testicles to abuse people.
Yes, cutting the nuts off would only work on those who have an uncontrollable sexual urge to molest children. And the resulting eunuchs would have to be kept from accessing testosterone supplements.
Those who molest children for the joy of torturing them, maybe just cut off their arms and legs. Then bury them with their respective limbs. They were unfortunate victims of our deterministic universe, but better them than children.
This is where I diverge from most people. As unspeakably horrible as child molestation and abuse is, those who do it are ‘sick’. You can’t punish someone to be better or fundamentally different than they were born to be. You can’t punish red-heads for red hair or tall people because they’re too tall, so you can’t punish mentally sick people into being good.
It’s obvious that threats of death aren’t preventing them from doing it, so what’s threatening to delimb them supposed to do?
I totally get the catharsis of punishment, and the more heinous the crime, the more severe and cathartic the punishment. But if there’s no benefit to anyone, don’t do it.
Of course I say all this, but if someone were to abuse my daughter… I’d suggest they immediately commit suicide in the most comfortable way possible, because if I have my way, they will surely suffer before their death.
Well, really, I, after a long time, have concluded that I am against the death penalty in the way that it is used in our criminal justice system, because some small % who are executed are not guilty and because some groups of ppl are more likely to be executed than others. If those problems could be absolutely remedied I might be for the death penalty. But I don’t think they can be absolutely remedied.
But if they could, then executing certain child molesters/torturers would be a good option, I think, as it would absolutely protect any potential future victims from them.
I bring this up in this thread, in order to make the point that, imo, it is ok to effectively deal with ppl who do horrible things, even tho in the grand scheme of things they did the horrible things because the universe has determined that they would.
Certainly no lack of imaginative suggestions.
Not fond of simply removing testicles. Traditionally, Chinese eunuchs had the whole lunch box removed. They then peed through a straw inserted into the uretha. Of course a lot died from infections. I think modern surgical techniques could do a lot better. Assuming of course you could get a doctor to perform such surgery.
Pretty sure chemical castration has been tried, with limited success .I think in England and in the US but not sure. I understand many offenders are willing to accept chemical castration instead of going to prison.
It is also my understanding that child molesters cannot be cured.
I stand by the position I have held for around 5o years; any person who harms a child should be killed. If the offender is a legal infant, perhaps castration might be tried on him.
What do you do with kids like that pair in England who murdered three year old James Bulger, in 1993? . They were both ten years old at the time .They were tried and found guilty of murder. The youngest in 250 years in the UK. They were locked up until they were 18, then released with new names. One, Jon Venables, has been sent back to prison more than once for child pornography offences.
Neither their present whereabouts, nor names have been made public. This has been done to protect their lives.
Citizen’s Challenge wrote
[my responses are in bold]
And inviting Lois ;- )
I don’t know, tried reading it and it seems like a ‘just so’ essay. His first paragraphs are more about coloring his audience’s perceptions. Free Will doesn’t exist, but then he describes what to me seems acts of Free Will, making decisions based on rapidly changing conditions that you can’t predict ahead of time and such.
Being able to “predict” changing conditions ahead of time is an illusion. We can’t do it. We only think we can, or we think we did after we think we made a decision.
I probably missed it, i did start glazing over a little, but did he actually define what his “Free Will” is in there somewhere?
So my first question: Define Free Will?
the ability to overcome determining factors by force of will.
Second question: Does a sense of self-preservation provide evidence (proof) of Free Will?
No
If not, Why not?
Self preservation is an instinct: “an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli”.* It is determining factor we have no control over and no direct knowledge of how it works or when it kicks in. It’s no different than the instinct of self preservation in non-human animals. Do you think they are aware of self-preservation? Do you think they have the ability to overcome it by force of free will?
*Merriam Webster Dictionary.
Responding to TimB
Well, really, I, after a long time, have concluded that I am against the death penalty in the way that it is used in our criminal justice system, because some small % who are executed are not guilty and because some groups of ppl are more likely to be executed than others. If those problems could be absolutely remedied I might be for the death penalty. But I don’t think they can be absolutely remedied.
i don’t think they have to be “remedied”. In my opinion the death penalty is inhumane and cruel and no government should have the power to kill its own people, no matter what they have supposedly done.
But if they could, then executing certain child molesters/torturers would be a good option, I think, as it would absolutely protect any potential future victims from them.
Executing anyone is an emotional response, not a reasoned one. Sure, there are plenty of people who I think deserve death, but I don’t think I or any human has the right to carry out such a punishment. Civilized countries manage their justice systems without the death penalty. Why can’t the US?
I bring this up in this thread, in order to make the point that, imo, it is ok to effectively deal with ppl who do horrible things, even tho in the grand scheme of things they did the horrible things because the universe has determined that they would.
We deal with people who do horrible things the way we do because we are determined to do it. Changes in our environment can change our determining factors. Somehow the people in countries without the death penalty have done this, despite the fact that the same crimes are committed in all countries. How do you think this has happened and why is the US the last holdout among Western countries?
3point14rat:
<p style=“padding-left: 40px;”>It feels creepy and strange to think about it, but I guess I was ‘fated’ to be typing this sentence by the conditions of the early universe.</p>
<p style=“padding-left: 40px;”></p>
<p style=“padding-left: 40px;”>It isn‘t fate, it’s determinism. “Fate” implies some supernatural force. IMO, it is not supernatural, but intrinsically human and earth-bound. Our actions are determined by our genes and environment, and nothing supernatural. </p>
<p style=“padding-left: 40px;”>Lois</p>
TimB
But if they could, then executing certain child molesters/torturers would be a good option, I think, as it would absolutely protect any potential future victims from them.
No, it wouldn’t. There will always be more child molesters. They are born of the same determining factors that drive all of our decisions. The only way to have any effect on future choked molesters is to change the environment that creates them. Killing them or torturing them has no effect. That has been proven.
I bring this up in this thread, in order to make the point that, imo, it is ok to effectively deal with ppl who do horrible things, even tho in the grand scheme of things they did the horrible things because the universe has determined that they would.
The problem is the US justice system is not effectively dealing with people who do horrible things. We are “dealing” with them emotionally. We must change the environment the way civilized countries are attempting to do. There is no other way. As long as we kill and torture perpetrators, the number of perpetrators will increase exponentially. It’s a hard truth to swallow, but it’s valid and must not be ignored.
LoisL
Lois I agree with your point that our criminal justice system is intensely in need of reform.
I even agree that killing a child molester will likely have little to no effect on inhibiting other child molesters. My point is however incontrovertible, and that is that the child molester that is killed will not molest any other children, because he will be dead.
Although I am in favour of the death penalty for some offenders, such as child killers, and murder for gain, I have a caveat: I support capital punishment if and only if the state can guarantee 100% of capital convictions are safe.
Of course there are pragmatic, a-moral reasons to execute even say violent career criminals; executed people have a 0% rate of recidivism. It’s also so much cheaper to simply kill them.–Especially if there are limits on appeals. Abolish the millions-of-taxpayers-money appeals.
Of course one’s country would resemble the PRC, or North Korea. Prez Trump would think that was just fracking dandy.
If there is no free will, the behaviour of both offender and the state are determined.
TimB wrote
My point is however incontrovertible, and that is that the child molester that is killed will not molest any other children, because he will be dead.
A child molester who is effectively imprisoned for life will also not molest any other children. The same is true of any criminal. A thief will also not steal again if he is dead. But there are other much more effective ways to deal with recidivism than by having the state kill criminals in cold blood— ways most other countries are engaging in. When the state kills criminals it is sending a message that there is nothing wrong with killing.
Under certain circumstances killing is socially acceptable. Wars and self defense, just to name a couple of examples.
A child molester that is irredeemable and that may molest again, a quick bullet to the brain would be efficient, humane, and certain of eliminating any further child molesting by that person. Who can say what could happen with a mere sentence of life imprisonment? There would be a non-zero chance of the molester getting free and molesting again.
So much of society is based on the concept of free will that I don’t know if the fact we don’t have it, can ever be fully incorporated. Just think of the justice system- they barely take into account psychology, how in the world can it ever be changed to incorporate this?It is difficult to wrap one mind around it, let alone everybody’s minds. There isn’t any satisfying answer. Plus, believing in free will is simply how the brain works so trying to change that is not realistic.
Some might say it’s possible to remove people who harm others from society without a sense of retribution, but you’re still stuck with the fact that the criminal had no control over their actions; they didn’t choose that route. The criminal is a essentially a different kind of victim…that must suffer.
We’re probably better off with our current mentality than trying to turn the justice system into deterministic utopia.
3point14rat:
So much of society is based on the concept of free will that I don’t know if the fact we don’t have it, can ever be fully incorporated. Just think of the justice system- they barely take into account psychology, how in the world can it ever be changed to incorporate this?
The world doesn’t have to be changed, and it doesn’t have to be changed in anyone’s mind into a “deterministic utopia”. We have no free will whether anyone accepts it or not. The world will keep spinning in any case.
Some might say it’s possible to remove people who harm others from society without a sense of retribution, but you’re still stuck with the fact that the criminal had no control over their actions; they didn’t choose that route. The criminal is a essentially a different kind of victim…that must suffer.
That the criminal has no control over his actions is true whether we mere mortals believe it or not. We as well as the criminal have no control over how we treat criminals. We will act according to our determining factors. But accepting that this is true may make humans more compassionate toward their fellow man and not expect punishment to change the criminal. Changing the social environment is the only way to change the criminal’s acts. We know retribution doesn’t work.
Whether the idea can be “fully incorporated” or not doesn’t matter, either. None of us have free will, so what we do about the justice system is also based on our determining factors. Nobody has to accept it, it just IS. Everything any of us do is determined by factors beyond our control. That we haven’t incorporated it into our justice system is as much a matter of determinism as everything else. It will be incorporated—or not—depending on everyone’s determining factors and the social environment.
<p style=“text-align: left;”>If you want to think we have free will, go ahead. Keep on pushing for retribution. If you do that it is also determined. </p>
<p style=“text-align: left;”>Lois</p>
Yet you advocate mercy and justice at the absolute exclusion of killing ANY criminal, in any circumstance, for any reason? You are only advocating a certain stance (by your own admission) that you are determined to. You are a puppet of the summation of factors impending on you.
granted that, this conversation seems rather superfluous
TimB: Yet you advocate mercy and justice at the absolute exclusion of killing ANY criminal, in any circumstance, for any reason?
That’s my opinion: that there should be no death penalty for any crime. Everyone’s determining factors will determine whether that comes to pass.
You are only advocating a certain stance (by your own admission) that you are determined to. You are a puppet of the summation of factors impending on you.
<b>So are you, as is everyone. </b>
granted that, this conversation seems rather superfluous
<b>You could make that point. But having such conversations could change the social environment eventually, and our determining factors would be affected by that changed environment. </b>
TimB
A child molester that is irredeemable and that may molest again, a quick bullet to the brain would be efficient, humane, and certain of eliminating any further child molesting by that person. Who can say what could happen with a mere sentence of life imprisonment?
<b>As of now in the US child molestation is not a capital crime and no child molester gets the death penalty unless he also commits murder.</b><b></b>
<b>Who is to say which child molesters are irredeemable? How about bank robbers? Shoplifters? Drunk drivers? People who collude with foreign governments to interfere with elections? Presidents and others who obstruct justice? Are they irredeemable? Should they also get a “quick bullet to the brain”? </b>
<b>So the fact that “There would be a non-zero chance of the molester getting free and molesting again“ is of no consequence. You could say the same thing about ALL crimes “a quick bullet to the brain would be efficient, humane, and certain of eliminating any further [crime] by that person.”</b>
<b>If all child molesters were to be executed, every clergyman convicted of child abuse would now be on death row. </b>
You are right in practice. It’s good to have u back in the midst of debate.
TimB: You are right in practice. It’s good to have u back in the midst of debate.
Assuming you are referring to me, thanks.
I would have been in earlier but I had problems signing in and figuring out this convoluted CFI blog system. I’m still having problems.
Lois