Safety vs. Freedom

[cantata]

Crime will always happen. The only way to guarantee a crime will never occur is to legalise it. We will never achieve a 0% crime rate, and there is a point where a whole new law, or more cruel and unusual punishments, will reduce the rate of the crime in question by an imperceptible and worthless fraction.

So before you jump up and down and shriek that sex offenders should be chemically castrated, or such-and-such a type of criminal should face the death penalty, remember that you are sacrificing your freedom and civility for only a chance that crime rates will fall, and that you will never, ever achieve absolute zero. Trust me - you wouldn't want to live somewhere where crime was non-existent. Your freedom would be non-existent too.

There will come a point where the monstrosity of our behaviour as a society towards those who have committed crimes outweighs the horror of the crimes we are preventing. We must never come close to that point. Yes, we are deeply troubled by certain kinds of criminals - particularly those who harm the innocent. But we must keep our desire for revenge in check, for the sake of our own civility.

 

[clarksided]

That's fine, but adults who molest children under 13 should receive life sentences.

 

[quatona]

Seeing how easily we all (collectively and individually) accept far greater risks (for ourselves and our children) without even raising an eyebrow, I have a hard time believing that the idea of castrating or killing criminals is primarily motivated by the desire for safety.

 

[cantata]

Seeing how easily we all (collectively and individually) accept far greater risks (for ourselves and our children) without even raising an eyebrow, I have a hard time believing that the idea of castrating or killing criminals is primarily motivated by the desire for safety.

True. But people like to say that's why they support it.

 

[The Nihilist]

That's fine, but adults who molest children under 13 should receive life sentences.

Then a child molester has a strong motive to kill any child he or she molests under age 13. Besides, contrary to common belief, being molested doesn't actually kill anyone, or even irreparably scar them forever. It sucks, but there are way worse things.

 

[cantata]

Then a child molester has a strong motive to kill any child he or she molests under age 13. Besides, contrary to common belief, being molested doesn't actually kill anyone, or even irreparably scar them forever. It sucks, but there are way worse things.

Indeed.

 

[keith99]

Then a child molester has a strong motive to kill any child he or she molests under age 13. Besides, contrary to common belief, being molested doesn't actually kill anyone, or even irreparably scar them forever. It sucks, but there are way worse things.

That really depends on just what the molestation was. Some very different things get lumped into one huge category.

 

[clarksided]

Then a child molester has a strong motive to kill any child he or she molests under age 13. Besides, contrary to common belief, being molested doesn't actually kill anyone, or even irreparably scar them forever. It sucks, but there are way worse things.

No it doesn't, because child molesters tend to be intelligent, manipulative bastards who realize that a missing child draws way more suspicion than a child acting out.

You say there are "way worse" things, but I'll take a shot in the dark here and say you've never been molested. No one can speak about that except the victims, and I'll leave that to them.

 

[cantata]

No it doesn't, because child molesters tend to be intelligent, manipulative bastards who realize that a missing child draws way more suspicion than a child acting out.

"Tend to be"? Do you have any evidence to support your psychological analysis of people who molest children?

You say there are "way worse" things, but I'll take a shot in the dark here and say you've never been molested. No one can speak about that except the victims, and I'll leave that to them.

Technically, only those who've suffered molestation and something that RecoveringPhilosopher would consider worse than molestation - say, at a guess, being tortured, or watching their parents being killed - would be in a position to say whether or not there are way worse things.

 

[Washington]

Seeing how easily we all (collectively and individually) accept far greater risks (for ourselves and our children) without even raising an eyebrow, I have a hard time believing that the idea of castrating or killing criminals is primarily motivated by the desire for safety.

And it isn't. It's motivated by revenge. Some people get their greatest satisfaction in meting out justice by inflicting suffering and death. To me it's pretty barbaric. But that's what some people are.

Technically, only those who've suffered molestation and something that RecoveringPhilosopher would consider worse than molestation - say, at a guess, being tortured, or watching their parents being killed - would be in a position to say whether or not there are way worse things.

I disagree. X's molestation may be quite mild in contrast to Y's molestation, and X may therefore not consider molestation to be as heinous a crime as does Y. AND, neither have probably suffered under any of the other crimes to which molestation can be compared. So although they have one crime by which they can measure other crimes, I fail to see why such a position gives them any better insight into the ranking of all the other crimes. In fact, it may even bias them, which perhaps leaves those of us who have not been molested, or have suffered any other crime, in a better position to more rationally divine the seriousness of each crime and therefore better able to judge their seriousness.

 

[cantata]

I disagree. X's molestation may be quite mild in contrast to Y's molestation, and X may therefore not consider molestation to be as heinous a crime as does Y. AND, neither have probably suffered under any of the other crimes to which molestation can be compared. So although they have one crime by which they can measure other crimes, I fail to see why such a position gives them any better insight into the ranking of all the other crimes. In fact, it may even bias them, which perhaps leaves those of us who have not been molested, or have suffered any other crime, in a better position to more rationally divine the seriousness of each crime and therefore better able to judge their seriousness.

You're right, of course. Victims are, generally speaking, the worst people to ask about the general matter of whatever it was they were a victim of.

Which is why it's so irritating when Leah Betts' parents are consulted every time someone suggests relaxing drug laws in this country.

 

[Maren]

And it isn't. It's motivated by revenge. Some people get their greatest satisfaction in meting out justice by inflicting suffering and death. To me it's pretty barbaric. But that's what some people are.

Yes, in fact your statement appears to resemble a certain infamous poster here who says he was abused by homosexuals as a child. It does seem to have a lot to do with his glorifying the death penalty and discrimination.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Then a child molester has a strong motive to kill any child he or she molests under age 13. Besides, contrary to common belief, being molested doesn't actually kill anyone, or even irreparably scar them forever. It sucks, but there are way worse things.

Consensual 'molestation' when the 'molester' is also underage can be enjoyed by all parties involved. The chance that it can happen when one is above the age of 18 is also possible.

It doesn't even have to suck.

 

[Washington]

Consensual 'molestation' when the 'molester' is also underage can be enjoyed by all parties involved. The chance that it can happen when one is above the age of 18 is also possible.

It doesn't even have to suck.

People underage are not considered to be mature enough to give such consent; therefore, legally, such consent does not exist. If two adults enjoy a "molestation" it would then fail to qualify as a molestation.

 

[lawtonfogle]

People underage are not considered to be mature enough to give such consent; therefore, legally, such consent does not exist. If two adults enjoy a "molestation" it would then fail to qualify as a molestation.

Wait, so because it is illegal it can not be enjoyed.

Also, you can't say something should be illegal because it is.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Crime will always happen. The only way to guarantee a crime will never occur is to legalise it. We will never achieve a 0% crime rate, and there is a point where a whole new law, or more cruel and unusual punishments, will reduce the rate of the crime in question by an imperceptible and worthless fraction.

So before you jump up and down and shriek that sex offenders should be chemically castrated, or such-and-such a type of criminal should face the death penalty, remember that you are sacrificing your freedom and civility for only a chance that crime rates will fall, and that you will never, ever achieve absolute zero. Trust me - you wouldn't want to live somewhere where crime was non-existent. Your freedom would be non-existent too.

There will come a point where the monstrosity of our behaviour as a society towards those who have committed crimes outweighs the horror of the crimes we are preventing. We must never come close to that point. Yes, we are deeply troubled by certain kinds of criminals - particularly those who harm the innocent. But we must keep our desire for revenge in check, for the sake of our own civility.

I agree on some points, but disagree on others. Yes, the crime rate will never be 0% and have freedom exist as well. Yes, there is a limit to how far we can go with penalties and such (I'm for death penalty, but not in a gruesome or glorifying way (such as on live television).
No, legalising everything does not mean the crime goes away (For those of you who may be confused by that sentence). It would make, it so there was no crime RATE, sure, but it just means that there is no way to commit a crime, thus nothing has really changed, except in an actual increase in crime/detestable acts.
I would rather take that chance than none at all. I find our "penalties" to actually be fairly lax of late. Those who go to prison and get out a year or so later can often be a far more dangerous criminal than before. And there's no guarantee that "rehabilitation" will prevent them from committing the act again.
Sorry, but giving up on crime because it will never go away just seems a little... weak... to me. When we give up on that, we give up part of our freedom as well. I think we have a right to seek out justice. Not REVENGE, mind you, but justice.
P.S. I also find the courts to be a little lax in the justice area lately, as well.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Wait, so because it is illegal it can not be enjoyed.

Also, you can't say something should be illegal because it is.

Really? I think that's actually what happens. The majority have expressed a certain distress to such an act, because they FEEL they have been wronged. Thus the majority has a law passed, and thus the "will of the people" has been expressed.
SO I say something CAN be illegal just because we say it is. So long as we have a 2/3 majority vote. XD

 

[Washington]

Wait, so because it is illegal it can not be enjoyed.

No. It's because by definition a molestation is not enjoyed.

Molest: ​

1. abuse somebody sexually: to force unwanted sexual attentions on somebody, especially a child or physically weaker adult​

2. annoy somebody: to pester, bother, or disturb a person or animal​

(Encarta dictionary)​

Also, you can't say something should be illegal because it is.

???????????

 

[NavyGuy7]

There ya go, Washington. Glad someone decided to use the dictionary. What is this, anyway? The Philosophy forum?
i don't think that we should be arguing about one little word.

 

[Washington]

i don't think that we should be arguing about one little word.

And I agree. We should all understand the meaning of the words we use.