08-24-2012, 11:42 AM
@ Duchess - yours and that of the majority of people, apparently.
In my opinion, the idea of punishment is based on a hierarchical structure, making those with the right to punish superior to those without. I have a problem with that, since I cannot see any reason for any person to feel superior to another, other than the purely evolutional one of being biologically 'fitter' (And most people I know really don't wanna go back to those times
). So the question for me is - how to treat someone who endangers others or has proven to be incapable of adhering to the rules of the community they live in with the maximum of effect?
The choices I see are
a) do away with this 'human dignity is inviolable' crap, and kill them off instantly - super effective, but flawed if you think on who is making a community's rules nowadays. (Hint - it ain't you, unless you're a very powerful, wealthy person)
or
b) take it (the dignity bit) seriously and apply it to everyone no matter what they did. That means we keep them away from people as long as they pose a danger and try to find out, change, or do away the reasons why they weren't adhering to the rules in the first place. Psychology taught us that negative reinforcement (aka punishment), is way less effective in that than its counterpart. Not as satisfying on an instinctual level, but definitely better for one's own survival if tptb decide on new rules.
So the decision to be made in a community is if the dignity of every human is inviolable, or no one's. Anything in between is just semantics and power play. IMO.
@Jezreel - I dunno about the US, but over here, the official and express purpose of the penal system is rehabilitation.
In my opinion, the idea of punishment is based on a hierarchical structure, making those with the right to punish superior to those without. I have a problem with that, since I cannot see any reason for any person to feel superior to another, other than the purely evolutional one of being biologically 'fitter' (And most people I know really don't wanna go back to those times
). So the question for me is - how to treat someone who endangers others or has proven to be incapable of adhering to the rules of the community they live in with the maximum of effect? The choices I see are
a) do away with this 'human dignity is inviolable' crap, and kill them off instantly - super effective, but flawed if you think on who is making a community's rules nowadays. (Hint - it ain't you, unless you're a very powerful, wealthy person)
or
b) take it (the dignity bit) seriously and apply it to everyone no matter what they did. That means we keep them away from people as long as they pose a danger and try to find out, change, or do away the reasons why they weren't adhering to the rules in the first place. Psychology taught us that negative reinforcement (aka punishment), is way less effective in that than its counterpart. Not as satisfying on an instinctual level, but definitely better for one's own survival if tptb decide on new rules.
So the decision to be made in a community is if the dignity of every human is inviolable, or no one's. Anything in between is just semantics and power play. IMO.
@Jezreel - I dunno about the US, but over here, the official and express purpose of the penal system is rehabilitation.