Prison: what's the point?

[shaktazuki]

We as a society take upon ourselves the right to punish those who break laws that we have set for the protection of all.
...

*EDIT: The Bible gives a precedent for governmental punishment, and says that the authority comes from none other than God himself.

Do I have to point out the problematic nature of these two justifications?

[Sergeant Thorne]

You can quit beatin' around the bush and out with your argument. I mean is there something I'm supposed to suddenly get, here? I thought those things that I said were pretty basic.

(EDIT: I mean c'mon, if I'm wrong point it out. I made a serious reply.)

[shaktazuki]

I'm not beating around the bush. Both of your justifications for the notion of \"punishment\" are inherently dangerous.

#1 is a simple appeal to power. That is an inherently dangerous and unacceptable justification, since, if accepted, it would justify everything those with more power than others would take it upon themselves to do.

#2 is an appeal to God without being able to authenticate the authority - and is the same kind of argument given by Osama Bin Laden (of course, citing the Qu'ran).

That's just a start.

[Sergeant Thorne]

You're mistaken in both cases, shaktazuki. You haven't understood what I was saying in #1, or what it is for a people to bind themselves together under common law (early settlers had, as their basis for government, a contract between them). Your arguments beg the question, \"what else is there?\". Romans 13 is a statement of reality, not a recipe or license for deriving government.

In all of this I am curious to know what your suggestions are. It's all very well to criticize, but do you have an alternative? (to incarceration, to discipline in prisons, to our present (supposed) rule of law, ...?)

[shaktazuki]

You're mistaken in both cases, shaktazuki. You haven't understood what I was saying in #1, or what it is for a people to bind themselves together under common law (early settlers had, as their basis for government, a contract between them). Your arguments beg the question, "what else is there?". Romans 13 is a statement of reality, not a recipe or license for deriving government.

I have misunderstood neither. The issue you have begged is "what is there which binds the dissenters and nonbelievers?" I submit there is nothing in your answers except "power."

In all of this I am curious to know what your suggestions are. It's all very well to criticize, but do you have an alternative? (to incarceration, to discipline in prisons, to our present (supposed) rule of law, ...?)

No prison except as a temporary holding place for trial. I'm an old-testament kinda guy when it comes to governance - including explicitly entering into a covenant to accept the rules and punishments; if someone doesn't want to make the covenant, they are free to leave for other lands.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I suspect that there may be some truth to what you're saying (though my impression is something akin to anarchism). At the same time I believe we're suffering from communication problems in our discussion. I have some questions about your last reply. You say that I've begged the issue of what binds the \"dissenters\" and \"nonbelievers\" (is that the same group but different terms for different motivations?). What should bind them? Their conscience? (sarcasm) I think you're correct in your conclusion that it is, ultimately, power. Considering that that power was put in place by we the people, with the precaution of checks and balances, and is (ideally) governed by law, how is that a bad thing? I am confident that the concept of \"might makes right\" was not the inspiration for, nor is the outcome of the rule of law in a democratic republic society such as America (the ideal), but that seems to be the implication of your negative appraisal.

You say that you believe everyone should explicitly enter into the social contract accepting rules and punishments. That's fine, I guess, but what's wrong with implicitly entering into it by being a citizen of this country while we are free to leave for other lands. I think people are worse off for a lack of knowledge concerning that implicit agreement, and an explicit agreement might go a long way in remedying that, but what else is to be gained?

[shaktazuki]

Considering that that power was put in place by we the people, with the precaution of checks and balances, and is (ideally) governed by law, how is that a bad thing? I am confident that the concept of "might makes right" was not the inspiration for, nor is the outcome of the rule of law in a democratic republic society such as America (the ideal), but that seems to be the implication of your negative appraisal.

It is possible that We, The People, might take more kindly to child rape someday, as we are edging towards homosexual marriage and the positions espoused by NAMBLA and euthanasia advocates, and so forth. I find those propositions problematic, yet there is nothing in the nature of power which precludes them... nor is there anything in vesting the mystical quality of "justified force" in the nature of We, The People, which precludes them.

In a nutshell: democracy is mob rule. It ever has been, and always shall be. That's just what it is in its nature. If the people (demos) want one thing today and another tomorrow, they will get it. No matter what "it" is.

You say that you believe everyone should explicitly enter into the social contract accepting rules and punishments. That's fine, I guess, but what's wrong with implicitly entering into it by being a citizen of this country while we are free to leave for other lands.

Because nobody implicitly enters into anything by birth. Nobody has a choice in their birth, nor where they are born, nor the nature of the power structure of the society into which they are born, nor the condition of the world. If it is not a choice, then they are not bound by it; nor should they be. If it is a choice, then they cannot argue ignorance, and they cannot deny the justice of what they experience since they agreed to it. You get better outcomes when people own the outcomes.

I think people are worse off for a lack of knowledge concerning that implicit agreement, and an explicit agreement might go a long way in remedying that, but what else is to be gained?

I explicitly deny the concept of an implicit contract, and I explicitly deny that there is any contract two parties can enter into which becomes binding upon a third party who was not party to the contract negotiations. I think to try to impose such on people inevitably causes rebellion because it is an affront to human dignity and autonomy. If you work by persuasion, and fully informed consent, you simultaneously recognize the human dignity of the participants in your social order, and defuse the rightful feelings of alienation and repression they would otherwise have towards you, which would otherwise lead to crime.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Well I can't disagree.

That bears some thinking.

[Spidey]

Having no knowledge of the time before ones birth precludes the notion that one had no choice in it.

Just wanted to point that out….carry on…