Human Rights gone bad.

[mattiasNYC]

There are so many who suffer from mass murder (Paris, Brussels Norway 9/11) that the overwhelming need after justice has been served is for closure. We can't bring their loved ones back, but we can legislate to stop the criminals exploiting the system after conviction, we owe the families that much.

I agree, and after an incident like this people get very emotionally charged.

I don't think that reasoning is particularly rational though. I think there are two issues to consider here;

The first one assumes the premise is correct – that the victims will get “closure” and thus feel better after Human Rights are denied criminals:

The point of having a process is to minimize the possibility of us punishing people a) that are innocent and b) in a barbaric fashion. So our legal systems have "due process". Fine. Everyone agrees that we should have that.

The problem is the basic mindset that processes somehow lose their value after the initial verdict. Because that's really what we're talking about. The very reason for allowing appeals and other legal challenges is to put checks and balances on our system. The relevant question here is "How else would we ensure that we don't end up with an oppressive state?".

So it really doesn't matter if it's Breivik challenging the Norwegian legal system to test whether or not his rights are violated, or if it's someone far less despicable that does it. The ability of anyone to bring such a challenge is key. Or one can simply turn this around. If all it takes is outrage and emotion to set aside due process, then how is that not the easiest thing in the world to exploit? You deny a convict his rights, torture them etc, and when the inmate complains we shrug our shoulders and point to "outrage" and "emotion" and "closure" as excuses for denying them even a process to ascertain whether or not their rights are violated in the first place.

The legal system is a system (duh), and as such we have to be extremely careful. The state has incredible power compared to the individual, and getting put into this system can effectively ruin a persons life, not to mention ending it if some have it their way. So, the system needs checks and balances. Getting rid of those because of "feelings"? What could possibly go wrong?....

The second issue to consider – which actually should be evaluated first – is whether or not the co-victims actually do get “closure” and then actually feel better and live better lives after Human Rights are denied, for example the death penalty has been carried out:

Now, the curious thing here is that people wanting a tough stance on these sorts of issues that promote both capital punishment and restrictions on Human Rights and due process, in the name of the victims supposed emotions, don't seem to ever provide much in terms of actual proof of the victims' wishes and feelings before and after punishment. I mentioned earlier that there are studies that suggest that capital punishment for example actually does NOT bring "closure". But this doesn't seem to register with the pro-harsh-punishment/no-due-process crowd. Instead the word-du-jour, now  "closure" it seems, is simply repeated and we're to simply accept the premise that it is true. Between the studies, co-victim pro-life campaigns and organizations and the increase of co-victims (the relatives of those put to death) I just don't see how this premise can simply be assumed..... other than that it is indeed "simple" to do so.

And as for Norway specifically, think about it this way: It's been years since Breivik committed his crimes. Has the Norwegian people changed the law? This is the worst terrorist act in its history. One would think that this incident if any would prompt the people to choose a different road if they really had the emotions that are implied here. Instead we see the following:

There's this:

Bjorn Magnus Ihler, who survived the Utoya shootings, said that Norway’s treatment of Mr. Breivik was a sign of a fundamentally civilized nation.

“If he is deemed not to be dangerous any more after 21 years, then he should be released,” Mr. Ihler said. “That’s how it should work. That’s staying true to our principles, and the best evidence that he hasn’t changed our society.”

And an interesting op-ed on the Breivik trial

As well as Time magazine's article on Breivik's conviction

Only 16% in favor of capital punishment after Breivik's attacks

Now, as for the following:

If one of my family members was killed I would want to bend the rules.

You say that, but you don't know. And neither do I. It's entirely possible that you and I both would kill out of passion, yet also entirely possible that we'd live with it after justice has been served (i.e. conviction / incarceration). The guilty deserving death is one thing. People wanting to kill the guilty is yet another. And the state executing people... also a separate issue.

I too hope the justice system can be improved (OJ Simpson anyone?) But a system of justice can only be as perfect as the people who participate in it. And we as humans are deeply flawed in many ways so I'm sad to say Justice will only ever be as just as we are collectively. And if you take the whole world into account we have a long way to go. 

But we do need each other because only as a multitude can we get the perspective needed to create a system of justice that better serves a larger multicultural population.
The world is getting smaller and cultures are being forced to coexist. There's a lot of friction there. Hot hot hot....

Right. So the only thing to do that makes sense is to preserve our values and principles and policies. Once we give in to outside pressure, be it neo-Nazi pro-Christian anti-Muslim terrorist Breivik or ISIS, then we lose that which we are trying to defend. "The ends justify the means" is the easiest way in the world to lose that which is good. It becomes a matter of definition: Do we judge based on actions or goals? We frequently judge others by their actions, so should we not hold ourselves to the same standard we advocate for others?

We've made great progress since the past millennium, and doing away with capital punishment and torture and putting checks and balances on the state has made that possible. Regression seems daft.

 

[bluebird]

Right. So the only thing to do that makes sense is to preserve our values and principles and policies. Once we give in to outside pressure, be it neo-Nazi pro-Christian anti-Muslim terrorist Breivik or ISIS, then we lose that which we are trying to defend. "The ends justify the means" is the easiest way in the world to lose that which is good. It becomes a matter of definition: Do we judge based on actions or goals? We frequently judge others by their actions, so should we not hold ourselves to the same standard we advocate for others?

We've made great progress since the past millennium, and doing away with capital punishment and torture and putting checks and balances on the state has made that possible. Regression seems daft.

Well said. What I'm trying to illustrate in my posts is that in the effort to be more forward thinking and moving towards a more humane society we are denying our base survival instincts. This is why it is so difficult to have a prosperous world.

Bjorn Magnus Ihler, who survived the Utoya shootings, said that Norway’s treatment of Mr. Breivik was a sign of a fundamentally civilized nation.

“If he is deemed not to be dangerous any more after 21 years, then he should be released,” Mr. Ihler said. “That’s how it should work. That’s staying true to our principles, and the best evidence that he hasn’t changed our society.”

This takes a lot of thought, time, and soul searching to be able to say something like this and mean it after what he went through.
We can't all be this enlightened. This kind of thinking goes against the instincts that allowed humanity to survive itself for so long.
As time goes on, idea's, systems, governments, all progress but human behaviour may be somewhat of a constant. All the anger, hate and rage is just as much part of us as peace, love, and understanding.  This will always be.

And, it's ironic how people express anger, hate, and rage while fighting for peace, love, and understanding.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Right. So the only thing to do that makes sense is to preserve our values and principles and policies. Once we give in to outside pressure, be it neo-Nazi pro-Christian anti-Muslim terrorist Breivik or ISIS, then we lose that which we are trying to defend. "The ends justify the means" is the easiest way in the world to lose that which is good. It becomes a matter of definition: Do we judge based on actions or goals? We frequently judge others by their actions, so should we not hold ourselves to the same standard we advocate for others?

We've made great progress since the past millennium, and doing away with capital punishment and torture and putting checks and balances on the state has made that possible. Regression seems daft.

Well said. What I'm trying to illustrate in my posts is that in the effort to be more forward thinking and moving towards a more humane society we are denying our base survival instincts. This is why it is so difficult to have a prosperous world.

Bjorn Magnus Ihler, who survived the Utoya shootings, said that Norway’s treatment of Mr. Breivik was a sign of a fundamentally civilized nation.

“If he is deemed not to be dangerous any more after 21 years, then he should be released,” Mr. Ihler said. “That’s how it should work. That’s staying true to our principles, and the best evidence that he hasn’t changed our society.”

This takes a lot of thought, time, and soul searching to be able to say something like this and mean it after what he went through.
We can't all be this enlightened. This kind of thinking goes against the instincts that allowed humanity to survive itself for so long.
As time goes on, idea's, systems, governments, all progress but human behaviour may be somewhat of a constant. All the anger, hate and rage is just as much part of us as peace, love, and understanding.  This will always be.

And, it's ironic how people express anger, hate, and rage while fighting for peace, love, and understanding.

I agree with your analysis and concern, except I don't agree that we can state that this will always be the case. Evolution is an ongoing process. Obviously it doesn't matter to you or I if our species changes for the better or for the worse since we'll be long gone by then, but change is pretty much certain.

 

[Spiritworks]

So, we are discussing the "rights" of the perpetrator, the "rights" of the survivors and the "rights" of the friends/relatives/loved ones of the victims, with many good points on both sides of the aisle.
But what about the ACTUAL VICTIMS ?
They are dead and gone. Their "rights" have been made a moot point. There are none now, and no way they ( actual victims ) can enjoy the possibility of a life trying to exercise those "rights". They can't even participate in a discussion regarding those "rights".
Their dreams, their goals, their passions - their very existence have all disappeared.
A mother no longer has a child.
A child no longer has a parent.
A lover no longer has a partner.
A great work of art no longer has a creator.
( IF ) someone decides - intentionally, not accidentally -  to take those things away from another person, then that someone no longer has a claim to any "rights" for themselves. How can it be otherwise?
Yes, of course there should be Due Process. Yes, a level playing field for everyone. No one should be above the Law, no one should have more "human rights" than another.
Due process, within the confines of the Law, is all we as a civilized society should strive to guarantee. Unfortunately, often times the reality doesn't live up to the standards we hope to uphold.
Ignorance of the law, and the resultant punishment from breaking those laws, ( both of which are decided by Society  ) are no reason to avoid the consequences.

 

[JohnRoberts]

So, we are discussing the "rights" of the perpetrator, the "rights" of the survivors and the "rights" of the friends/relatives/loved ones of the victims, with many good points on both sides of the aisle.
But what about the ACTUAL VICTIMS ?
They are dead and gone. Their "rights" have been made a moot point. There are none now, and no way they ( actual victims ) can enjoy the possibility of a life trying to exercise those "rights". They can't even participate in a discussion regarding those "rights".
Their dreams, their goals, their passions - their very existence have all disappeared.
A mother no longer has a child.
A child no longer has a parent.
A lover no longer has a partner.
A great work of art no longer has a creator.
( IF ) someone decides - intentionally, not accidentally -  to take those things away from another person, then that someone no longer has a claim to any "rights" for themselves. How can it be otherwise?

I'm repeating myself but it surely can be otherwise.

The motivation from society to intervene when people deprive others of basic rights (life, liberty, etc) are two fold a) deterrence factor to prevent or discourage future similar behavior, and b) a revenge (eye for an eye), a more primal emotional not logical response.

Intentional or accidental matters for the revenge determination, but not deterrence. If someone is likely to accidentally deprive future victims that needs to be addressed as vigorously as intentional acts, while the revenge motivation cares about intent.

Yes, of course there should be Due Process. Yes, a level playing field for everyone. No one should be above the Law, no one should have more "human rights" than another.
Due process, within the confines of the Law, is all we as a civilized society should strive to guarantee. Unfortunately, often times the reality doesn't live up to the standards we hope to uphold.
Ignorance of the law, and the resultant punishment from breaking those laws, ( both of which are decided by Society  ) are no reason to avoid the consequences.

I expect in the future we will be able to employ technology to better prevent heinous attacks, but are still struggling to understand and work peacefully with different cultures, especially those who don't value all life. 

One important thing to realize is we don't all think alike, and it is very hard to change how people think when their culture reinforces certain belief systems, different from ours. Two different groups can experience the exact same event and draw two dramatically different conclusions about what happened based on their background frame of reference. Some obvious stuff to us isn't obvious at all to significant populations.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

So, we are discussing the "rights" of the perpetrator, the "rights" of the survivors and the "rights" of the friends/relatives/loved ones of the victims, with many good points on both sides of the aisle.
But what about the ACTUAL VICTIMS ?
They are dead and gone. Their "rights" have been made a moot point. There are none now, and no way they ( actual victims ) can enjoy the possibility of a life trying to exercise those "rights". They can't even participate in a discussion regarding those "rights".
Their dreams, their goals, their passions - their very existence have all disappeared.
A mother no longer has a child.
A child no longer has a parent.
A lover no longer has a partner.
A great work of art no longer has a creator.
( IF ) someone decides - intentionally, not accidentally -  to take those things away from another person, then that someone no longer has a claim to any "rights" for themselves. How can it be otherwise?

Ok, so hypothetically, people participating in a state-sanctioned execution of a person on death row, who then is determined to have been innocent, now have as few rights as the person put to death had, correct? In other words, the executioner is only excused if the executed indeed is guilty. If it turns out he wasn't, then the executioner deserves the death penalty, yes?

That's just me entertaining the idea that a person automatically loses his/her rights due to taking the life and thus rights of another person. However, I don't agree with that basic premise, as I think you can see.

How do we not judge a society on how it treats its residents, criminals or otherwise?

Ignorance of the law, and the resultant punishment from breaking those laws, ( both of which are decided by Society  ) are no reason to avoid the consequences.

Not sure I understand what you mean there. (?)

 

[mattiasNYC]

I'm repeating myself but it surely can be otherwise.

The motivation from society to intervene when people deprive others of basic rights (life, liberty, etc) are two fold a) deterrence factor to prevent or discourage future similar behavior, and b) a revenge (eye for an eye), a more primal emotional not logical response.

Intentional or accidental matters for the revenge determination, but not deterrence. If someone is likely to accidentally deprive future victims that needs to be addressed as vigorously as intentional acts, while the revenge motivation cares about intent.

Well, I think that prevention is a more comprehensive motivation than deterrence, which seems to be a subset of prevention. I only point that out because to my memory all statistics I've seen point to the death penalty (for example) serving as pretty poor deterrence, yet of course it permanently prevents that criminal from recidivism.

It's actually not an uninteresting thing to consider, because the very basic issue that was brought up in one of the articles I linked to has to do with recidivism and treatment. What is the point in having a scale of punishments? It's clearly because we don't want to execute people for shoplifting for example. So we make the punishment "scale proportionally", more or less, supposedly. But so for anything less than either death or life in prison these criminals will eventually be let out again, and at that point we're facing the risk of recidivism. Treatment seems to be a valid option in some cases, and deterrence in some. But it would seem to me that treatment if possible should always be the first option. Deterrence to me seems to rely on making a potential criminal fear the consequences to the point of not committing the crime, but that deterrence is in and by itself something negative.

I expect in the future we will be able to employ technology to better prevent heinous attacks, but are still struggling to understand and work peacefully with different cultures, especially those who don't value all life. 

Future technology and how it relates to privacy will continue to be an obvious concern to take seriously.

One important thing to realize is we don't all think alike, and it is very hard to change how people think when their culture reinforces certain belief systems, different from ours. Two different groups can experience the exact same event and draw two dramatically different conclusions about what happened based on their background frame of reference. Some obvious stuff to us isn't obvious at all to significant populations.

JR

While that is true it also invites questions on just which those cultures are and what they have in common. Is it a distrust of those who don't share your religion? Is it the appeal to authority and harsh punishments for criminals? Is it taking the law in one's own hands and resorting to terrorism when the state doesn't do what one thinks it should?.....

..... Was that a description of an ISIS member or Breivik? If it was the latter, do we define his culture as being sort of "local" to himself or that of Norway? If it's "local", do we do the same to an ISIS member versus his country/ethnicity/religion? And if we argue that his religion is crappy, to what extent can we apply that criticism to all religions with said problems? We probably agree when evaluating any individual principle that we find abhorrent (justifying terrorism for example), yet the question is if we can apply it equally. It's not easy.

You mention that it's hard to change how people think when their culture reinforces a certain belief system than hours, but this brings back a point made earlier that certain fundamental aspects are the same. When "they" say they're just carrying out god's will, "we" have people saying that carrying out god's will is exactly what people should be doing to go to heaven. That's the belief system we share, and it is in my opinion a cause of a lot of problems. In this case I agree with people who complain about us being "PC", just not the way they think about it. We quickly approach the point of "respect my religious beliefs" if the criticism is too universal, regardless of whether or not it is correct. That's a problem.

PS - I realize that it just seems like needless argumentation and disagreement for the sake of disagreement, so let me just add this: If our culture is defined by how we express ourselves, the art we consume, the religion and food, and our political views, then one can argue that part of western culture is this subset of hate- and fear-mongering xenophobic rhetoric. It is a "subculture" just like radical religious denominations are. That western subculture is something some warned about before Breivik, yet here we are, after him having committed his crimes. So the question is to what extent that subculture should be dealt with before something happens again. In that sense asking the above questions is entirely reasonable I think.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'm repeating myself but it surely can be otherwise.

The motivation from society to intervene when people deprive others of basic rights (life, liberty, etc) are two fold a) deterrence factor to prevent or discourage future similar behavior, and b) a revenge (eye for an eye), a more primal emotional not logical response.

Intentional or accidental matters for the revenge determination, but not deterrence. If someone is likely to accidentally deprive future victims that needs to be addressed as vigorously as intentional acts, while the revenge motivation cares about intent.

Well, I think that prevention is a more comprehensive motivation than deterrence, which seems to be a subset of prevention. I only point that out because to my memory all statistics I've seen point to the death penalty (for example) serving as pretty poor deterrence, yet of course it permanently prevents that criminal from recidivism.

Being drawn back into this time black hole.....

An interesting (perhaps) example is shariah laws remedy of cutting off the hand of accused thieves.  Clearly they won't steal with that hand again (prevention), and risk of losing their other hand will serve as a deterrence toward recidivism.

Another aspect to incarcerating criminals is that it generally protects the public from repeat behavior at least while they are imprisoned.  Some small fraction may actually be rehabilitated but I expect real reform must come from within the individual.

It's actually not an uninteresting thing to consider, because the very basic issue that was brought up in one of the articles I linked to has to do with recidivism and treatment. What is the point in having a scale of punishments? It's clearly because we don't want to execute people for shoplifting for example. So we make the punishment "scale proportionally", more or less, supposedly. But so for anything less than either death or life in prison these criminals will eventually be let out again, and at that point we're facing the risk of recidivism. Treatment seems to be a valid option in some cases, and deterrence in some. But it would seem to me that treatment if possible should always be the first option. Deterrence to me seems to rely on making a potential criminal fear the consequences to the point of not committing the crime, but that deterrence is in and by itself something negative.

Another form of deterrence is the certainty that a criminal would get caught if they repeat. Even criminals are not complete idiots. We enjoy our privacy, but I'm not sure criminals deserve the same degree. Modern technology is getting to the point where we could tag these felons with a variation on the ankle bracelet for house arrest, that monitors their comings and goings and generally what they do. This smart arrest means criminals would have to feed and house themselves, while being punished (and monitored). 

Throwing a couple million perps in the gray bar hotel, may help some people sleep but it is expensive and not generally a permanent solution (like the death penalty).  Perhaps an upgrade to shariah law cutting off the hand is putting it inside a cast that can't be removed for 6 months to a year. Perhaps an electronic nerve block that cripples the hand until the nerve block is removed by a court.

I expect in the future we will be able to employ technology to better prevent heinous attacks, but are still struggling to understand and work peacefully with different cultures, especially those who don't value all life. 

Future technology and how it relates to privacy will continue to be an obvious concern to take seriously.

Communication technology is only one aspect. I've long speculated about making explosives ineffective by remote automatic detonation. Few bomb makers could work with explosives that blow themselves up too early. I find it remarkable that firearms are still in use in this the 21st century. I expected Taser like non-lethal weapons to be more widely embraced. OTOH if you have a few tens of thousands of incorrigible miscreants, they may need killing.   

One important thing to realize is we don't all think alike, and it is very hard to change how people think when their culture reinforces certain belief systems, different from ours. Two different groups can experience the exact same event and draw two dramatically different conclusions about what happened based on their background frame of reference. Some obvious stuff to us isn't obvious at all to significant populations.

JR

While that is true it also invites questions on just which those cultures are and what they have in common. Is it a distrust of those who don't share your religion? Is it the appeal to authority and harsh punishments for criminals? Is it taking the law in one's own hands and resorting to terrorism when the state doesn't do what one thinks it should?.....

huh?

..... Was that a description of an ISIS member or Breivik? If it was the latter, do we define his culture as being sort of "local" to himself or that of Norway? If it's "local", do we do the same to an ISIS member versus his country/ethnicity/religion? And if we argue that his religion is crappy, to what extent can we apply that criticism to all religions with said problems? We probably agree when evaluating any individual principle that we find abhorrent (justifying terrorism for example), yet the question is if we can apply it equally. It's not easy.

I was speaking generally in very broad strokes.

You mention that it's hard to change how people think when their culture reinforces a certain belief system than hours, but this brings back a point made earlier that certain fundamental aspects are the same. When "they" say they're just carrying out god's will, "we" have people saying that carrying out god's will is exactly what people should be doing to go to heaven. That's the belief system we share, and it is in my opinion a cause of a lot of problems. In this case I agree with people who complain about us being "PC", just not the way they think about it. We quickly approach the point of "respect my religious beliefs" if the criticism is too universal, regardless of whether or not it is correct. That's a problem.

the differences are important... like respect for all life.

PS - I realize that it just seems like needless argumentation and disagreement for the sake of disagreement, so let me just add this: If our culture is defined by how we express ourselves, the art we consume, the religion and food, and our political views, then one can argue that part of western culture is this subset of hate- and fear-mongering xenophobic rhetoric. It is a "subculture" just like radical religious denominations are. That western subculture is something some warned about before Breivik, yet here we are, after him having committed his crimes. So the question is to what extent that subculture should be dealt with before something happens again. In that sense asking the above questions is entirely reasonable I think.

huh...  this seems like needless argumentation for the sake of disagreement .

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

An interesting (perhaps) example is shariah laws remedy of cutting off the hand of accused thieves.  Clearly they won't steal with that hand again (prevention), and risk of losing their other hand will serve as a deterrence toward recidivism.

Another aspect to incarcerating criminals is that it generally protects the public from repeat behavior at least while they are imprisoned.  Some small fraction may actually be rehabilitated but I expect real reform must come from within the individual.

I think I agree.

Another form of deterrence is the certainty that a criminal would get caught if they repeat. Even criminals are not complete idiots. We enjoy our privacy, but I'm not sure criminals deserve the same degree. Modern technology is getting to the point where we could tag these felons with a variation on the ankle bracelet for house arrest, that monitors their comings and goings and generally what they do. This smart arrest means criminals would have to feed and house themselves, while being punished (and monitored). 

Throwing a couple million perps in the gray bar hotel, may help some people sleep but it is expensive and not generally a permanent solution (like the death penalty).  Perhaps an upgrade to shariah law cutting off the hand is putting it inside a cast that can't be removed for 6 months to a year. Perhaps an electronic nerve block that cripples the hand until the nerve block is removed by a court.

I think one problem with that would be the public's perception that terms / punishment is being shortened. A lot of people don't care that part of the punishment then would be as you describe it. Unless of course you see it as an addition, in which case others will complain about an extension to the punishment.

I think the fundamental problem is the concept of punishment versus deterrence to the punished. I don't think there's a magical duration of incarceration for example where the punished goes "Oh, wait, this sucks! Now I understand I should never do this again." I think it's more fluid, but I don't public perception is. If I remember correctly one interesting statistic is the plummeting of recidivism rates in rapists after they undergo chemical castration. To me it seems like one of those types of crimes where IF one ignores vengeance, prevention can be achieved close to immediately, making long incarceration unnecessary from that standpoint. But imagine the outrage if a serial rapist is sentenced to two months in jail to ensure the chemical castration has had time to yield the desired effect, rather than years in prison.

Communication technology is only one aspect. I've long speculated about making explosives ineffective by remote automatic detonation. Few bomb makers could work with explosives that blow themselves up too early. I find it remarkable that firearms are still in use in this the 21st century. I expected Taser like non-lethal weapons to be more widely embraced. OTOH if you have a few tens of thousands of incorrigible miscreants, they may need killing.   

I know you mentioned that before, and that use of technology is really interesting. I totally agree.

If by "tens of thousands of incorrigible miscreants" you mean groups like ISIS, then we're pretty much talking all out warfare.

huh?

I was speaking generally in very broad strokes.

the differences are important... like respect for all life.

huh...  this seems like needless argumentation for the sake of disagreement .

JR

It's not. It's just illustrating that "respect for all life" isn't as clear cut as you make it seem to be, and neither is "culture". Those are easy things to state in a general sense, but to what extent they're actually "useful" is debatable because they're often not as obvious as one might think on further (deeper) thought.

 

[JohnRoberts]

An interesting (perhaps) example is shariah laws remedy of cutting off the hand of accused thieves.  Clearly they won't steal with that hand again (prevention), and risk of losing their other hand will serve as a deterrence toward recidivism.

Another aspect to incarcerating criminals is that it generally protects the public from repeat behavior at least while they are imprisoned.  Some small fraction may actually be rehabilitated but I expect real reform must come from within the individual.

I think I agree.

Another form of deterrence is the certainty that a criminal would get caught if they repeat. Even criminals are not complete idiots. We enjoy our privacy, but I'm not sure criminals deserve the same degree. Modern technology is getting to the point where we could tag these felons with a variation on the ankle bracelet for house arrest, that monitors their comings and goings and generally what they do. This smart arrest means criminals would have to feed and house themselves, while being punished (and monitored). 

Throwing a couple million perps in the gray bar hotel, may help some people sleep but it is expensive and not generally a permanent solution (like the death penalty).  Perhaps an upgrade to shariah law cutting off the hand is putting it inside a cast that can't be removed for 6 months to a year. Perhaps an electronic nerve block that cripples the hand until the nerve block is removed by a court.

I think one problem with that would be the public's perception that terms / punishment is being shortened. A lot of people don't care that part of the punishment then would be as you describe it. Unless of course you see it as an addition, in which case others will complain about an extension to the punishment.

I've discussed this before, and this is the second time in this thread... a fraction of the population are operating emotionally (punishment) rather than logically (deterrence). That is with thoughtful (logical) government is supposed to rise above (raw emotional responses).

JR

I think the fundamental problem is the concept of punishment versus deterrence to the punished. I don't think there's a magical duration of incarceration for example where the punished goes "Oh, wait, this sucks! Now I understand I should never do this again." I think it's more fluid, but I don't public perception is. If I remember correctly one interesting statistic is the plummeting of recidivism rates in rapists after they undergo chemical castration. To me it seems like one of those types of crimes where IF one ignores vengeance, prevention can be achieved close to immediately, making long incarceration unnecessary from that standpoint. But imagine the outrage if a serial rapist is sentenced to two months in jail to ensure the chemical castration has had time to yield the desired effect, rather than years in prison.

Communication technology is only one aspect. I've long speculated about making explosives ineffective by remote automatic detonation. Few bomb makers could work with explosives that blow themselves up too early. I find it remarkable that firearms are still in use in this the 21st century. I expected Taser like non-lethal weapons to be more widely embraced. OTOH if you have a few tens of thousands of incorrigible miscreants, they may need killing.   

I know you mentioned that before, and that use of technology is really interesting. I totally agree.

If by "tens of thousands of incorrigible miscreants" you mean groups like ISIS, then we're pretty much talking all out warfare.

huh?

I was speaking generally in very broad strokes.

the differences are important... like respect for all life.

huh...  this seems like needless argumentation for the sake of disagreement .

JR

It's not. It's just illustrating that "respect for all life" isn't as clear cut as you make it seem to be, and neither is "culture". Those are easy things to state in a general sense, but to what extent they're actually "useful" is debatable because they're often not as obvious as one might think on further (deeper) thought.

 

[DaveP]

Sentencing Logic

Karadzic

40 years/8000 victims = 1.8 days/victim

Breivik

21 years/77 victims = 99.5 days/victim

Conclusion: volume discounts apply

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

Sentencing Logic

Karadzic

40 years/8000 victims = 1.8 days/victim

Breivik

21 years/77 victims = 99.5 days/victim

Conclusion: volume discounts apply

DaveP

He's 70 years old. What difference does it make if he's eligible for release when he's 110 or 796070 years old?