this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
1147 points (99.9% liked)

People Twitter

5339 readers
1799 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
1147
Life goals (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 6 days ago by FenrirIII to c/[email protected]
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/32759580

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I skipped incarceration because you'd already expressed it as preferable to capital punishment.

It's only inhumane if they're no longer a danger to society.

I cannot agree there. Unless you're arguing that "everything is legitimate" in the case of dangerous individuals, I imagine you don't really believe that either.

Rehabilitation is always the goal, but in instances where it is unachievable and the perpetrator is reasonably expected to remain unrepentant, is keeping them alive and imprisoned for life at the expense of law-abiding citizens the way forward? Would they not grow resentful of having to support those who do not follow the social contract?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

is keeping them alive and imprisoned for life at the expense of law-abiding citizens the way forward?

Yes, for two reasons:

  • it's immoral to kill people, because there's always a chance at rehabilitation; IMO, if we give up on that, we give up on humanity
  • it's generally more expensive to execute someone than keep them locked up indefinitely, so it's not even a pragmatic option

Even if the second were not the case, I would still say yes due to the first.

I think the goals should be essentially this:

  1. complete rehabilitation - not always possible, but it should always be assumed to be
  2. return to society with the harm being neutralized - any alterations must 100% be the choice of the individual (e.g. a serial rapist could elect to be castrated, a kleptomaniac or stalker could elect for permanent tracking via microchip, etc)
  3. return to productive interaction with society, while still physically restrained - e.g. they can work within prison
  4. voluntary doctor-assisted suicide - an individual should always have the option of ending their life, provided they're of sound-enough mind

I'm against 2 & 4 until we have certain checks in place to prevent abuse, and 3 would absolutely need to be opt-in by the prisoner.

Would they not grow resentful of having to support those who do not follow the social contract?

As long as murder is unacceptable in society, it's the price you pay for the privilege of stripping someone else's rights from them.

IMO, the only valid use of lethal force is if there's no valid alternative option to protect innocent lives. I would kill if it directly spared innocent lives, but not if there's any possibility of protecting innocent lives another way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)
  1. return to society with the harm being neutralized - any alterations must 100% be the choice of the individual (e.g. a serial rapist could elect to be castrated, a kleptomaniac or stalker could elect for permanent tracking via microchip, etc)

We kinda do this already with ankle monitors, not that I think subdermal tracking would be any less fallible.

As long as murder is unacceptable in society, it's the price you pay for the privilege of stripping someone else's rights from them.

Therein's the rub, see. That's the price to be paid for one person. If the murder of one enriches the many, maybe it was worth it. And since not everyone values lives equally, not everyone can have a unanimous take.

IMO, the only valid use of lethal force is if there's no valid alternative option to protect innocent lives. I would kill if it directly spared innocent lives, but not if there's any possibility of protecting innocent lives another way.

I laud you for having and knowing your heirarchy of values, I am still (and quite possibly forever will be) determining my own red lines.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Yeah, it's an interesting thought process to go through.

I really like how Penn Jillette puts it:

Penn: Absolutely. I believe there are legitimate purposes of the government like defense, courts and police. I don’t think you can privatize police, jails or courts. That’s where legitimate force comes in. My question is: What would I personally use a gun to accomplish? I would use a gun to stop a rape. I would use a gun to stop a terrorist attack. I would not use a gun to build a library. My morality is such that if I’m not willing to use violence myself, I’d never use violence because I’m a coward, but theoretically if I’m not willing to use violence myself then I can’t condone the government using violence.

What are you willing to use a gun for? And I don't mean theoretically, I mean if the gun was literally in your hand and pulling the trigger would have the desired effect, what would you actually be willing to use a gun for? And what if the desired effect isn't guaranteed, how much assurance would you need, or how much collateral damage is acceptable?

Everyone has their own threshold, and this threshold surely changes as we have our own experiences in life. My threshold is really high, and I would probably only use violence to protect my family and close friends.