From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 2:56 PM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: evidence of god? for Holtz [G Riggs] "Elizabeth Hubbell" wrote: > > OK, tell us: what is the maximum finite period of incarceration that > > could ever be just punishment for first-degree murder? > > It is entirely conceivable that certain prisoners will continue to show > no evident rehabilitation at any time, remaining incarcerated throughout > their lives [..] And yes, that translates to life > imprisonment as "the maximum finite period of incarceration" But you would never favor keeping an 80-year-old in prison for a murder he committed at age 20. So admit it: under your principles, murderers eventually walk out of jail. Now, what is the *minimum* finite period of incarceration that that could (with current science and technology) ever be just punishment for first-degree murder? Five years? Five weeks? Five minutes? > > If I brutally kill you and then (somehow) honestly, sincerely, > > completely "reform" the next day, I deserve no punishment? Ludicrous. > > if a murderer's "reform" were genuine, the murderer might feel enough > remorse to participate willingly in a judgement of his own restitution, > possibly financial I said nothing about restitution. If you are unwilling to defend the bare implications of your principles, then I needn't bother refuting them further... > > Is there some amount of "positive developments" that excuses murder? > > Let's say a diary [..] offering a priceless > glimpse for future historians of another era [..] or an > invaluable insight for scientists into the ways of the pathologically > sociopathic mind. Would these excuse murder, yes or no? And how could even such remote possibilities ever be reasonably considered during sentencing? > > > the deliberate killing of any person who no longer > > > poses a direct threat to any other individual (due to incarceration or > > > whatever) remains a crime. > > > > In other words, you care more about punishing people for possible > > future crimes than for actual past crimes! That's frightening, > > especially for the people with no past crimes who you might come > > to believe will commit future crimes. > > Straw man. The only reason why this individual is facing imprisonment > at all is because he has demonstrably committed murder already So a murderer almost finished with "rehabilitation" deserves jail, but someone with no priors who your psychoscience considers a far greater risk nevertheless deserves to walk free? > The only principle I am invoking here is one tied > to self-evident awareness of an act having already been done. No, you've explicitly said that the punishment should depend on probability of future crimes, and under repeated questioning had declined to say how punishment should depend on past crimes. Now you merely pronounce a bizaare one-strike principle in which one of two equally dangerous people is only locked up if he has a prior. > While--unfortunately--the conjuring up of some authoritarian > super-structure subscribing to outrageously pre-emptive incarceration > may not necessarily be irrelevant in each instance, in this instance it > is. Because you say so? Because your intentions are so much better than those of e.g. Newt Gingrich? Sorry, but your track record of judging people's moral rectitude is not a good one... > > > only those who still pose a direct threat to > > > individuals justify the expedient of outright slaughter. > > > > Am I to understand you would countenance a capital trial in > > which a death sentence was meted out for the crime of > > "posing a direct threat to individuals"? > > That is not what I'm saying at all. In my clumsy way, I was referring > only to split-second instances where an individual [poses a > direct threat]. In other words, you oppose capital punishment in all conceivable judicial cases, but didn't have the courage to say so... > I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Indeed. > > I've identified a positive duty to prevent death due to indigence. > > What *specific* duty are you talking about? > > I suppose things like Welfare, [..] the essential principle of the > social safety net. You still have not distinguished this from my own principle of preventing death to to indigence. If you can't be specific, there is little point to this discussion. > > What is the *most* inequality > > that you can imagine obtaining under a system you would consider just? > > Certain disparities in income might be just, so long as there are no > disparities in opportunity nor disparities in access to basic > necessities, such as education, medicine and/or shelter, etc. Clearly, > the quality of medicine, the quality of shelter, and the like, might be > dependent on the quality of income, up to a point. I might live with > that. But any total absence whatsoever of any or all availability of > basic necessities for certain innocent individuals is fundamentally > unjust, IMO, and shows up a system as basically inadequate in my view. Eight vague lines here, and the only possible distinction from my position is the one word "education". Why do I even bother responding to your postings...? > Such a system I do not consider just, whether on a national or an > international level. Are you saying that America should pay and pay until the minimum global per capita welfare benefit is 100% of what it is here? If not, what is the lowest percentage that you would consider just? (Odds that you'll actually give me a number: pretty low...) > > There is no such mandate. That phrase merely describes one of the > > goals that "we the people" had in ordaining and establishing the > > Constitution. > > If we take that as a mere goal, then so must "providing for the Defense" > be a mere goal. You can't have it both ways. I don't. I'd point you to Article I Section 8, but you'd probably again be confused by the word 'welfare' there. You have a lot to learn about U.S. constitutional jurisprudence... > > In particular, I'd like to know *specifically* what you think > > people are entitled to above and beyond protection from > > mortal danger? I'd also *love* to know: what is your argument > > against someone who would advocate *more* entitlements for > > people than *you* advocate? > > If I seemed to imply that I'd actively *oppose* any entitlements for > people beyond those I first advocated in this discussion, I didn't mean > to. So you admit you have no argument against total equalitarian communism. Thanks for sharing, but there is no point in debating political theory with someone who has hardly even begun thinking about it. > As to what I believe all human beings are > entitled to specifically, I suppose I've pretty much given a rundown of > that in responding above to your query on inequality. No, the only thing I saw above and beyond protection from mortal danger was the single word "education". Look, how about you come back in a while when you've put some more thought into these things, and in the meantime dispense with your sweeping moralistic pronouncements about political economy? -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net