Man gets one day in jail for rape charges

[Didymus 34,380]

5 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

What? Science has disproven crime and punishment? How so?

That's not what I said. We were talking about "justice".

5 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Having a justice system is a necessary and proper responsibility of all governments, unless you want to get down into philosophical questions of human nature and whether or not we are inherently good or bad.

But in the meantime you sounds like a delusional person trying to make the argument that we've evolved past justice and science has proven so. 

No philosophical questions necessary. Just simple studies regarding free will, genetic probability of behavior development, and brain stimulation through environmental circumstances.

The idea that people who do things that upset the order of society must be set apart and possibly "corrected" is obviously necessary for a society to function, but a society that pretends it values science should at least discard the idea that criminals deserve to be punished as people who are defined by their crime. That's not pragmatic, that's not scientifically supported argumentation, that's pseudo-religious bs and that's final.

[MJHolland 12,725]

19 minutes ago, Didymus said:

That's not what I said. We were talking about "justice".

No philosophical questions necessary. Just simple studies regarding free will, genetic probability of behavior development, and brain stimulation through environmental circumstances.

The idea that people who do things that upset the order of society must be set apart and possibly "corrected" is obviously necessary for a society to function, but a society that pretends it values science should at least discard the idea that criminals deserve to be punished as people who are defined by their crime. That's not pragmatic, that's not scientifically supported argumentation, that's pseudo-religious bs and that's final.

That's not "final". That's your opinion and it's not supported by any science. Criminals do deserve to be punished for breaking laws, especially laws such as rape and murder. 

[Sara 1,144]

19 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Maybe in the society we live in, but I do think there's a lot to be done for us to be able to understand the impulse for sexual assault. Until we understand why people continue to rape in a society where sex is available (and free) to the max, we're not gonna make much progress by just shutting them up and hoping the problem will magically disappear.

Rape isn't usually about sex though, it's an act of violence and power.  It's someone taking their anger or their issues out on someone else.   I'm not willing to expend any effort rehabilitating a rapist if the method of rehabilitation puts others in greater danger.   If there is a non-jail way to fix him that doesn't have any risk of him repeating, then that's fine, but I can't imagine what that would look like.

 

[Didymus 34,380]

6 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

That's not "final". That's your opinion and it's not supported by any science. Criminals do deserve to be punished for breaking laws, especially laws such as rape and murder. 

Well you were the one who claimed there was no scientific debate about whether or not fish feel pain and I absolutely brutalized your absolute idiocy regarding that matter (which you ignored, of course) so I'm not even gonna bother to reply to that tbh. Don't quote me in the future.

[Didymus 34,380]

21 minutes ago, Sara said:

Rape isn't usually about sex though, it's an act of violence and power.  It's someone taking their anger or their issues out on someone else. I'm not willing to expend any effort rehabilitating a rapist if the method of rehabilitation puts others in greater danger. If there is a non-jail way to fix him that doesn't have any risk of him repeating, then that's fine, but I can't imagine what that would look like.

Ok, woman, I've had it.

How many ****ing times do I have to tell you to stay on topic where my posts are concerned? I literally just told you that my ideals aren't applicable to today's situation and I also already said that on the first page of this thread. You keep repeating the same old tune, and all I can do is repeat what's already present in my first post and you keep ignoring it, what's the point.

Post your opinions all you want, absolutely fine with that, but my posts simply aren't connected to them, so why quote them at all? That's been a trend for the last few days and it's pissing me off beyond belief.

[MJHolland 12,725]

23 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Well you were the one who claimed there was no scientific debate about whether or not fish feel pain and I absolutely brutalized your absolute idiocy regarding that matter (which you ignored, of course) so I'm not even gonna bother to reply to that tbh. Don't quote me in the future.

I conceded. You're the fish expert of GGD, which is very relevant to this discussion.

But yeah keep pushing that there is a scientific argument for and against morality. 

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, MJHolland said:

I conceded. You're the fish expert of GGD, which is very relevant to this discussion.

But yeah keep pushing that there is a scientific argument for and against morality. 

Of course it's relevant. You try to speak for things you have no idea about, clearly. Not just science, I also criticized you a while ago for saying there were no Native Americans who took issue with racist depictions in sports mascots. And here we had this randomly weird "the concept of justice is older than religion" argument that is not even confirmable by definition

Until scientists fully understand free will (which they don't), there will always be debate about the validity of our justice system. One name at the top of my head is Gregg Caruso who is explicitly (which a lot of scientists don't wish to) linking neurological research regarding free will to the outdated mechanisms of our justice system.

These are interesting matters. It's very saddening to see you shut down any discussion about them with your "facts" that are just flat out wrong most of the time. I don't get it, because you've been proven wrong so many times now and you still don't understand you might have to wait a bit before jumping to conclusions and using them as arguments in a public discussion lol. But then again, you just disappear when you're facing defeat, which is a nice survival strategy after all I guess

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

32 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Ok, woman, I've had it.

This is giving me angry sexist husband vibes nnnnnnn  

 

[Didymus 34,380]

3 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

This is giving me angry sexist husband vibes nnnnnnn  

In truth, I actually wrote "ok dude" first and changed it. It's funny how the one is sexist and the other isn't

[MJHolland 12,725]

1 minute ago, Didymus said:

Of course it's relevant. You try to speak for things you have no idea about, clearly. Not just science, I also criticized you a while ago for saying there were no Native Americans who took issue with racist depictions in sports mascots. And here we had this randomly weird "the concept of justice is older than religion" argument that is not even confirmable by definition

Until scientists fully understand free will (which they don't), there will always be debate about the validity of our justice system. One name at the top of my head is Gregg Caruso who is explicitly (which a lot of scientists don't wish to) linking neurological research regarding free will to the outdated mechanisms of our justice system.

These are interesting matters. It's very saddening to see you shut down any discussion about them with your "facts" that are just flat out wrong most of the time. I don't get it, because you've been proven wrong so many times now and you still don't understand you might have to wait a bit before jumping to conclusions and using them as arguments in a public discussion lol. But then again, you just disappear when you're facing defeat, which is a nice survival strategy after all I guess

I believe we got in that argument because you and other on here were trying, as non-Native Americans, to tell a Native American member what they should/should not be offended by, whereas I was the only one to present any poll and/or statical evidence.

Anyways, if you say I can't claim the concept of justice was created before religion, how come you can claim the conception of justice happened after religion, thereby being influenced by it?

I find your arguments very bizarre. Not only are crime and punishment necessary to maintain order, but the concept of justice has the moral high ground as defined by public opinion in almost every society. 

And I disappear in defeat? You literally just told me to shut up like a toddler because you're afraid, lol. 

35 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Ok, woman, I've had it.

How many ****ing times do I have to tell you to stay on topic where my posts are concerned? I literally just told you that my ideals aren't applicable to today's situation and I also already said that on the first page of this thread. You keep repeating the same old tune, and all I can do is repeat what's already present in my first post and you keep ignoring it, what's the point.

Post your opinions all you want, absolutely fine with that, but my posts simply aren't connected to them, so why quote them at all? That's been a trend for the last few days and it's pissing me off beyond belief.

You actually seem like a very unstable person...

By any chance, is there something that you should be taking a lot of but have taken none?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Didymus said:

In truth, I actually wrote "ok dude" first and changed it. It's funny how the one is sexist and the other isn't

I think this is an example of privilege vs sexism.

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, MJHolland said:

I believe we got in that argument because you and other on here were trying, as non-Native Americans, to tell a Native American member what they should/should not be offended by, whereas I was the only one to present any poll and/or statical evidence.

No. You literally said there were no Native Americans who got upset about the issue. That was your first post and you got instantly clocked by more than just me.

1 minute ago, MJHolland said:

Anyways, if you say I can't claim the concept of justice was created before religion, how come you can claim the conception of justice happened after religion, thereby being influenced by it?

When did I say religion influenced the concept of justice? I did not. I called it "pseudo-religious" because those ideas of justice only really make sense in a religious framework, not in a secular one where science is supposed to swing the sceptre.

3 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

I find your arguments very bizarre. Not only are crime and punishment necessary to maintain order

Which I literally agreed with.

4 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

but the concept of justice has the moral high ground as defined by public opinion in almost every society. 

Which I literally admitted, though I also said that doesn't stop me from pointing out what, according to me, is a problem. I don't give a **** about it being embedded in nearly every society, I see a contradiction where I see one. Believing in evolution theory because science is great but still holding on to the precious idea of the unhampered free will justifying dehumanization of people engaging in criminal behavior is a folly, the end.

5 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

And I disappear in defeat? You literally just told me to shut up like a toddler because you're afraid, lol. 

I told you to not quote me in the future. Big difference.

In every other case you just removed yourself from the conversation when you started losing. That's why I made that comment. And I'm not afraid, I can keep this going forever.

6 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

You actually seem like a very unstable person...

By any chance, is there something that you should be taking a lot of but have taken none?

I never claimed to be stable, but I don't think I need meds, thanks for the advice though. But maybe you can also try to understand my point of view. It's not enjoyable to have someone quote you over and over again without reading what you're saying in over three threads in just a manner of days.

[Didymus 34,380]

6 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

I think this is an example of privilege vs sexism.

Not sure. I mean, I get that. But the way I personally feel it functions (for me) is to just try to strip your conversation partner of a façade that's keeping up the pretense that you're just having a harmless conversation: you're just a man/woman like everyone else and I can take you.

[Economy 52,861]

On June 28, 2016 at 0:00 PM, Didymus said:

Ready for everyone to read over the fact that the prosecutors dropped the rape charges. Anyway, I think this is good. I'll take probation over jail for most criminals anyway. Both are ineffective flop responses but I seriously don't believe in the idea that taking someone away from his natural habitat for years and then pushing him back in is going to have a significant impact for the better.

I always said that locking people up is some innefective uncreative way of punishing

 

its silly after all this time we still use this outdated form of punishment

 

locking ppl up for years can result in phychological harm that is just gonna make the person crazier. Doesnt help anyone

 

Surely we can come up with other ways to punish criminals that actually work better

[Kayla 7,595]

On 6/29/2016 at 11:16 AM, MJHolland said:

That's not "final". That's your opinion and it's not supported by any science. Criminals do deserve to be punished for breaking laws, especially laws such as rape and murder. 

I agree that punishment is necessary, but I also want to point out that favoring rehabilitation and alternative methods of justice/punishment being better actually IS supported by science. 

http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/143.full.pdf
"Multilevel, comprehensive prevention approaches that: emphasize making available to violent individuals the kinds of tools they need in order to develop non-violent skills and reality-based sources of self-esteem; increase their capacity to experience feelings of empathy and remorse; and provide opportunities to take responsibility and amend the injuries they have inflicted on others and on the whole community, may play an important role in reducing the cycle of violent crime."
"Inmates who participated in RSVP had lower rearrest rates for violent crimes and spent less time in custody. The decline in violent re-arrests increased with greater lengths of stay."

http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/149.full.pdf
"During the year before RSVP began, there were 24 violent incidents serious enough to have constituted felonies had they occurred in the community (roughly three per month) in the 62-bed dorm. During the first month RSVP was in effect there was one such incident; and for the following 12 months, there were none. During that same year, the control dorm that still followed traditional jail practices had 28 violent incidents."
"Correctional efforts may improve with the transformation of subcultures into therapeutic communities that facilitate the practice of prosocial skills over attitudes and mores that engender violence."

It's known that when it comes to drugs treatment is more effective than incarceration, but I feel drug crimes and physical violence crimes are incredibly different so even though it might help prove my claim, it feels wrong to use it as an example.  

So yeah, science does prove that Didymus' claims are more effective at curbing future violence than traditional systems of imprisonment and punishment.