Prisoner released in Calgary "Likely to Kill"

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by evman150

I don't have to prove what I know (background knowledge) to you. It is not germane to the discussion at hand. It is incumbent upon you, if you disagree with me, to come up with a school of ethics that would support your conclusion. Then we can discuss that. Calling me out on my background knowledge is bad form, insulting, and indicative of a poor debater.

I think all he did was ask for support on your original thought, which is fair, this looks like Peter looking for you to expand on your thought and you running away to hide.

[missdpuck]

Don't worry guys he's probably on his way to Florida.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by evman150

No justice system is perfect, all we can hope for is the fairest, most reasonable approximation. In this case, the only clear, fair solution is to let the guy go, because in the end it is not even close to worth it to erode the rights of 30 000 000 in order to (maybe) save one or two.

Thinking of the problem from an ethics standpoint, this is the only solution. None of the schools of ethics would advocate the right wing emotion filled hatred going on in this thread.

I'm sorry, but I find this thought process completely absurd. Eroding the rights of 30 000 000? Give me a break. Making it harder for this guy to get out of prison would only erode the rights of that fraction of us who will ever go up before a parole board. As a man who has no intention now, or in the forseeable futre of molesting, or exposing myself to little kids, I would in no way feel that my rights were changed or violated. However, as a man who sees having kids at some point in the future, I would feel much safer knowing that a predator who is deemed "highly likely to re-offend" is in no way a threat to them. It may be an emotional reaction, but I'm sick and tired of giving morons like this second chances. If he were to reoffend, where is his victim's second chance?

My biggest problem with this is that while I do agree that as members of society everyone has certain, inalienable rights, I feel that beyond that we all have an obligation to respect and protect the rights of others. Criminals, no matter how small the crime, have failed to fulfill this obligation, and as such are removed from society for a time. During this time of removal, criminals should be offered the chance to be rehabilitated, however, if at the end of their sentence a panel of experts deems that they are likely to violate another person's rights, how can it be acceptable to the rest of society that this person be released?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

Fascism qualifies as a "school of ethical thought"; I'm pretty sure a fascist would have no trouble in justifying this guy's execution. For that matter, nihilists would find no issue with killing him either, although not for the reason that he is a criminal, which would probably actually be viewed as a positive attribute.

Not to say I agree with either, which I definitely do not, but claiming that there are no ethical schools which embrace repression and arbitrary killing is plain wrong.

The libertarian school of thought would plainly state that the man has violated the social contract and must be removed from society to prevent harm from any more law-abiding citizens. This does not condone execution and neither do I.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by evman150

At what point is it ok to just let him rot in jail for the rest of his life? If he's 50/50 to kill again? 80/20? 99%? 1%? 0.001%? Where do you draw the line? How can you possibly draw that line? How is it not morally reprehensible to draw that line? Is it worth the erosion of everyone's rights to save a guy from killing again?

No justice system is perfect, all we can hope for is the fairest, most reasonable approximation. In this case, the only clear, fair solution is to let the guy go, because in the end it is not even close to worth it to erode the rights of 30 000 000 in order to (maybe) save one or two.

Thinking of the problem from an ethics standpoint, this is the only solution. None of the schools of ethics would advocate the right wing emotion filled hatred going on in this thread.

Ugh, the slippery slope argument rears its ugly head again. Keeping people known to be dangerous in prison indefinitely does not take away the rights of the entire country. It only affects those who are considered a danger to society. If you were to consider imprisoning someone who is believed to be dangerous by the best authorities we have on the subject a way of taking away their rights, how do you justifiy emprisoning anyone at all? Either they have a right to freedom under all circumstances, or they have certain responsibilities to live up to in order to earn those rights, and in this case, they are not. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand in our society, if you can't live up to the responsibility, your rights get limited.

The one thing we should consider is that the legal system in this country is set up not specifically to punish offenders, but more to protect the innocent. While it sometimes seems like we are tending away from this goal, that is the main intent. In this case, letting him free, given that he does not believe he has done anything wrong, and therefore has no reason to change his behaviour, puts people at risk. His rights do not come before the rights of the rest of society. This is exactly the type of situation that the dangerous offender tag should be used for.

As for schools of ethics not agreeing with keeping him locked up, there is indeed the school of thought in the ethical community that the good of the many should override the good of the few. Not everyone would agree with it, and it does tend to have drawbacks but it is still out there.

[transplant99]

I don't have to prove what I know

Really huh? Since when?

Its been a vital piece of how this board has worked since day 1...it's incumbent upon one person to PROVE things that are not just opinions.

You stated something, he asked for proof and now you say you "don't have too".

Not surprising and the arrogance is once again proven beyond a doubt,

Weakest statement you have made...and that's saying A LOT!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

I don't have to prove what I know (background knowledge) to you. It is not germane to the discussion at hand. It is incumbent upon you, if you disagree with me, to come up with a school of ethics that would support your conclusion. Then we can discuss that. Calling me out on my background knowledge is bad form, insulting, and indicative of a poor debater.

That has to be the most vague and arrogant statement I have seen out of you in awhile. Frankly, I don't think you know all that much and your limited capacity for knowledge you attempt to cover with faux high-brow vocabulary. You are utterly unimpressive as an intellectual and it shows.

Prove what you said or don't. I really don't care. It is somewhat annoying when people make emotional/silly cases for things that they don't have the knowledge to support.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

The libertarian school of thought would plainly state that the man has violated the social contract and must be removed from society to prevent harm from any more law-abiding citizens. This does not condone execution and neither do I.

That's nice, but I was refuting evman150's claim that there aren't any schools of philosophy that would condone extralegal murder.

[black rubber disc bunny]

Originally Posted by puckhog

My biggest problem with this is that while I do agree that as members of society everyone has certain, inalienable rights, I feel that beyond that we all have an obligation to respect and protect the rights of others. Criminals, no matter how small the crime, have failed to fulfill this obligation, and as such are removed from society for a time. During this time of removal, criminals should be offered the chance to be rehabilitated, however, if at the end of their sentence a panel of experts deems that they are likely to violate another person's rights, how can it be acceptable to the rest of society that this person be released?

That was really well put.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

That's nice, but I was refuting evman150's claim that there aren't any schools of philosophy that would condone extralegal murder.

Well fair enough, I was just adding to your point. No need to be like that.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well fair enough, I was just adding to your point. No need to be like that.

Sorry, but that came across as a total non sequitur. There is no real consensus among libertarians on criminal law, with a wide spectrum of opinions going from aggressive support for capital punishment to a preference for restorative justice, whereby there are no prisons but criminals are responsible for compensating their victims - sort of a modern weregild system, I suppose.

However, I think any plausible libertarian society probably *would* just kill people like this, as it wouldn't make economic sense to keep him in prison, and the Randian form of libertarianism so dear to the North American heart is all about maximizing economic efficiency. While the literature and historical thought on the subject of libertarian criminal law does tend towards the aforementioned restorative type of justice rather than retributive, this I think (with absolutely no evidence other than my own completely unsupported theorizing) is much akin to the Marxist dream of the "withering away of the state" - it would fall apart under the press of reality and end up in tyranny.

To my mind, libertarianism is the mirror image of Marxism, and won't work for the exact same reasons Marxism doesn't work - it assumes that people are rational. In Marxism, the big mistake is thinking people won't try to cheat the system; in libertarianism, the mistake is thinking you solve that by minimizing the system you can cheat.

Not that this has much to do with the original subject, of course.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Really huh? Since when?

Its been a vital piece of how this board has worked since day 1...it's incumbent upon one person to PROVE things that are not just opinions.

You stated something, he asked for proof and now you say you "don't have too".

Not surprising and the arrogance is once again proven beyond a doubt,

Weakest statement you have made...and that's saying A LOT!

You're missing the point.

I stated something, he didn't try to refute it, instead he attacked me.

Calling someone out like that is not part of how this board has worked.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

That has to be the most vague and arrogant statement I have seen out of you in awhile. Frankly, I don't think you know all that much and your limited capacity for knowledge you attempt to cover with faux high-brow vocabulary. You are utterly unimpressive as an intellectual and it shows.

Prove what you said or don't. I really don't care. It is somewhat annoying when people make emotional/silly cases for things that they don't have the knowledge to support.

Another offensive ad hominem.

And also, find a post of mine where I have used a word incorrectly. Good luck. But then you'll just say that's not to the point, and continue to attack me.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

Sorry, but that came across as a total non sequitur. There is no real consensus among libertarians on criminal law, with a wide spectrum of opinions going from aggressive support for capital punishment to a preference for restorative justice, whereby there are no prisons but criminals are responsible for compensating their victims - sort of a modern weregild system, I suppose.

However, I think any plausible libertarian society probably *would* just kill people like this, as it wouldn't make economic sense to keep him in prison, and the Randian form of libertarianism so dear to the North American heart is all about maximizing economic efficiency. While the literature and historical thought on the subject of libertarian criminal law does tend towards the aforementioned restorative type of justice rather than retributive, this I think (with absolutely no evidence other than my own completely unsupported theorizing) is much akin to the Marxist dream of the "withering away of the state" - it would fall apart under the press of reality and end up in tyranny.

To my mind, libertarianism is the mirror image of Marxism, and won't work for the exact same reasons Marxism doesn't work - it assumes that people are rational. In Marxism, the big mistake is thinking people won't try to cheat the system; in libertarianism, the mistake is thinking you solve that by minimizing the system you can cheat.

Not that this has much to do with the original subject, of course.

Then your knowledge of libertarianism is fairly thin. Rand isn't even considered a libertarian by many standards, she is more of an objectivist and rejects many of the standards set forth by Friedman and Hayek. Friedman stated in opposition of the Vietnam draft that the state does not have the right to treat its citizens like property. The same principle applies to criminal law.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

Another offensive ad hominem.

And also, find a post of mine where I have used a word incorrectly. Good luck. But then you'll just say that's not to the point, and continue to attack me.

Please. Partisan assumptions deserve non-partisan proof. You are incapable of providing that. I can't possibly form a rebuttal when your original statement can only be deciphered through your own framework.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Jade

As for schools of ethics not agreeing with keeping him locked up, there is indeed the school of thought in the ethical community that the good of the many should override the good of the few. Not everyone would agree with it, and it does tend to have drawbacks but it is still out there.

You are wrong, utilitarianism would not support that action.

And for Jammies, when I said "schools of ethics", what was implied was "schools of normative ethics". Sorry if this wasn't clear.

Consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics (I would argue virtue ethics isn't normative, but that's another story) all support my view.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

Please. Partisan assumptions deserve non-partisan proof. You are incapable of providing that. I can't possibly form a rebuttal when your original statement can only be deciphered through your own framework.

I make a claim.

You refute the claim.

That's how a discussion should work.

I make a claim.

You attack me by needlessly questioning my knowledge of something presupposed in the discussion, putting me in a lose-lose situation. I am left to either prove I know what I'm talking about and look like a putz, or refuse to answer and get attacked for doing that.

That's not how a discussion should work.

FWIW I'm a Philosophy major (as well as Astronomy) with a minor in Applied Ethics. I do indeed know what I'm talking about. But now by saying that I'll get attacked for bragging (or something along those lines). Thanks for putting me in the lose-lose situation.

[Eddie Bronze]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Somebody just off the guy. I'm sick of reading, hearing, and talking about people that deserve death.

If someone did this, you can bet dollars to donuts they'd get 25 to life in prison for it. But he could kill you and end up with 11 or 12 years. That's how backwards the society is that we live in.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Eddie Bronze

If someone did this, you can bet dollars to donuts they'd get 25 to life in prison for it. But he could kill you and end up with 11 or 12 years. That's how backwards the society is that we live in.

I agree with Eddie, it just doesn't make sense.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

Then your knowledge of libertarianism is fairly thin. Rand isn't even considered a libertarian by many standards, she is more of an objectivist and rejects many of the standards set forth by Friedman and Hayek. Friedman stated in opposition of the Vietnam draft that the state does not have the right to treat its citizens like property. The same principle applies to criminal law.

Well, as I don't care if I am in a lose-lose proposition, let me say I spent half a decade in my twenties as a hard-core libertarian, so I'm reasonably certain my knowledge of libertarianism is actually quite extensive. I think if you did some further research on libertarian theories of justice - like Friedman here (where, btw, he specifically cites Rand as a libertarian, contrary to your view), proposing contracts, private agencies and courts, vs. Nozik here, where he proposes a limited state apparatus of justice, you would see that claiming any particular unifying principles of libertarian justice is premature.

You simply cannot claim that Friedman speaks for all libertarians on this issue, as if you actually reference the Libertarian Wiki, it explicitly states that libertarians are split on the issue, and one would think that if this was controversial, it would reference a far more extensive discussion than looks to be the case. Friedman and Hayek are no more the end-all and be-all of libertarianism any more than St. Paul is the ultimate arbiter of Christendom.

Forgive me for the digression, but it might be interesting to know that I became disillusioned with libertarianism after I worked at a large multi-national (Digital/Compaq) and realized that large corporations were examples of how economies of scale overcame neo-classic theories of laissez-faire capitalism by distorting free markets with their own peculiar brand of bureaucratic ineptitude. And at least with a government, you can vote the bums out.