>>3801818
>>Why can't we just try to rehabilitate criminals
That's what countries without retarded legal systems do.

>> execute those who can't be rehabilitated.
We run the risk of executing an innocent person. Execution is not a reasonable punishment for most crimes.

>>3801818
Prison's main goal is not to rehabilitate but to isolate. We don't particularly care whether or not the criminal repents or regrets or reforms. We just want him restrained for a while so the rest of us are safe. Even if he is still a criminal twenty years later, that's twenty years we had without him bothering us.

>>3801847

But the execution wouldn't serve as a punishment, but just a way of removing somebody dangerous from the population.

It's not "eye for an eye" or any of that nonsense.

>>3801858

But my country (England) doesn't hold most people for long enough. If they kept them for life, it wouldn't matter, but there are people leaving a few months or years later. And sometimes they come out as worse criminals than as they went in.

Our system of justice is not just action based on a reflection of the offender, but also of those he offended.

If a man is an absolute monster, does that give us a right to be a monster now? Eye for an eye make both parties guilty of maiming the other. Passing judgment in itself is immoral, dominating another person. However, it is necessary to prevent greater evil from that someone doing worse, or others feeling they can do the same with no repercussion.

Furthermore, how can we be sure the person is guilty? it is never 100% and often we punish innocents. If our punishments are severe, we are guilty of being excessivly cruel to those who didnt deserve it. if punishments are more moderate we have less blood on our hands.

Furthermore we can Make up for those punishments if one is found innocent at a later time, provided we haven't killed them.

Rehabilitation is hard to do. how do you make a criminal not be a criminal? if you treat them nicely people have no reason to not commit crime. if you treat them cruelly, they do not recover.

>>3801847

disregard that, i suck cocks.
execute criminals all you want, fuck rehabilitation.

##daisy

>>3801862
Would you have the blood on your hands to kill anyone that was a potential threat to you? I should hope not, and that you would be capable of mercy, as well as forgiveness, and recognise that redemption is possible.

Have you never harmed another person? If so, should you have been removed from the population? In a way that you cease to exist?

>>3801858

I completely agree with this post.

I think capital punishment is bad. In America we have had an amount of innocent people executed. Killing an innocent person I feel is a supremely bad thing.

I dont believe prison should be for the purpose of "punishment" as society doesnt gain anything from the punishment itself.

>>3801903

But the execution part of my view is not about justice, nor mercy. It is simply about removing a problem.

Also, no, I have not ever harmed another person for any reason other than self defence.

The best answer I can come up with is I don't know.

>>3801920
Hey Chad, sup?

>>3801920
Scoiety gains prevention from punishment. I wont knock over a bank, do you know why?
Is it because i think its wrong to take money from a bank?
No, it is because i dont think i could do it without getting caught. If i am caught i imagine living in a cell for 15 years with a man who calls me nancy when he sidled up next to me late at night.
IF i though the worst that would happen is i get sent to a village on the other side of the country where i couldnt leave, but everything would be essentially the same, id risk it in a heartbeat.

>>3801936

Prevention doesn't work, though, because most criminals don't think they are going to get caught.

I spoke to a guy who did four years in France and England for running a drug running operation from Europe to America, and it didn't enter his mind once that he was going to get caught. I know it's only anecdotal, but there are a number of other criminals I've spoken to that believe either of these:

1: They won't get caught.

2: The justice system is such a joke, that they don't care if they get caught.

>>3801818
For the same reason we let stupid ones procreate, weak ones govern, those with a fragile soul of a coward make decisions.
Because we support disgenics.
Of course the next question would be: Why do we support disgenics? And there is no politically correct answer to that.

we already do that.
and we can't do that exclusively because there also needs to be a deterrant, having your rights taken away in prison

>>3801959

>Of course the next question would be: Why do we support disgenics? And there is no politically correct answer to that.

Because the people promoting eugenics are typically idiots who can't spell dysgenics.

>>3801936

Yeah, I agree to some extent, that a deterrent discourages crime. The resulting lack of crime from there being a deterrent is what people want, we dont want the punishment itself. I dont benefit because someone suffers, I benefit because, my car might not get stolen because the potential criminal will think twice.

So yeah, prison needs to be a deterrent to some extent. But we need to look at the moral and economic consequences of how we deter people from committing crime. We could just start killing criminals, but does that stop people from committing crime? It doesnt seem like it. We could brutally hurt criminals publicly, but I think its morally bad to hurt someone like that.

Also when you try and deter criminals by severely increasing punishment, the incentives arent so clear cut. Some people might say "Im not going to steal bread because if I get caught it wont be worth it" and some people might say "Im going to steal bread, but since the punishment is so severe, I might as well kill all the potential witnesses too"

Thats why I think isolation is really the only good philosophy. We have people, and we need to separate them from society, and thats going to cost us money, but at least it doesnt cost of some greater moral loss. Also, we dont need to make prison comfortable, or in anyway preferable, so as it still remains a deterrent to a safe extent.

>>3801971
Spelling mistake! My point is invalid.
Although I could say : ΔΥΣΓΟΝΙΚΗ. The word in its original form. Would you prefer that? Ηλίθιε ψευτο-διανοούμενε?

>>3801972
how about if everything was free people would have a need or ability to steal?

>>3801971
Be that as it may, there really are no real arguments against eugenics (and no, "IT'S ALL MEAN WAH WAH WAH" does not count as a real argument).

>>3802001
inb4 the stupid pic

>>3801999
How would bankers be filthy rich and scam our money if there was no money, this idea is retarded because i'll be as rich as a banker one day

>>3802001

>there really are no real arguments against eugenics

Except that there is: We have genetic engineering now. It achieves the same ends, but with greater precision, less or no unintended side effects and without the necessity of establishing an authoritarian state that dictates who marries whom.

How do you answer this?

>>3801999

The reality is things arent free. Regardless of prices, or money, things take time, effort and resources. Things arent free, and because of that human beings have an innate sense or property and rights.

I think everybody has a right to live.
I don't know if it's true, but I once heard that 19 out of 20 murderers are men. Why don't we do the same with murderers as we do with aggressive animals? Castrating or sterilizing them. In my opinion even if someone is rehabilitated the potential murderer is still in his genes, so he/she shouldn't have the right to reproduce.

What do you think /sci/? Would a castration sentence be that much less scaring than a death sentence that the number of crimes would rise?

>>3802016
It's a lot more work to try and fix, say, the retarded, than it is to just stop them breeding.

>>3802022
Might be, but I bet faggots would insist on using anaesthetic or some shit.

>>3802016
>We have genetic engineering now.
Stop playing Deus Ex and reading sci-fi.
We can't even locate the genes for genetic diseases that have been around for millennia.

>>3802019

>It's a lot more work to try and fix, say, the retarded, than it is to just stop them breeding.

No it isn't. Making genetic correction a widely available service involves vastly less organization and state spending than trying to enforce bans on unauthorized sex and sending specialists out to force abortions on women.

Make the product available and people will use it. Nobody wants an inferior child.

I think indentured servitude for minor crimes is a good idea. steal an ipod? Now you clean the sewers. The problem comes when the people who normally clean the sewers are out of a job.

Also, the state cant benifit from crime, it just encourages more severed sentences. if you don't believe me, look at all the ridiculous traffic tickets. Its in the interest of the law for cops to give people tickets for hanging air fresheners from their rear view mirror, because it makes the sate money.

>>3802029

>Stop playing Deus Ex and reading sci-fi.
We can't even locate the genes for genetic diseases that have been around for millennia.

Which ones? We have in fact located the genetic basis for a vast number of hereditary conditions. The only reason it's not commonplace to correct those issues is the legality of offering genetic modification as a service. The technology factually does exist today to modify a blastocyst to correct for hereditary problems, it's just controversial enough that it has not yet been legalized.

>>3802033

What?

Why did you say those words to me?

>>3802029
For some we do, for some we don't.
Don't go all Zeno on genetic engineering.

I've offered a method of achieving the same benefits as eugenics but without the draconian state control of marriage and sex. Yet, the eugenics proponent rejects this solution and continues to try and find some justification to use a more primitive, less precise and inarguably oppressive alternative.

This is because eugenics proponents aren't really devoted to the greater good. They believe that under a government enforcing eugenics policies, a beautiful woman would be forced to marry them because they are intelligent.

>>3802014
not if other backer have any say... why do they need a competitor to take 'our' "money" ?

>>3802041

Linked the wrong post, my bad.

>>3802046
You have done nothing of the sort.

I propose this: We institute eugenics whilst working on advancing genetic engineering. When we get genetic engineering to the point where it is a viable alternative, we switch over to that.

>>3802019
yes because our current society wants things quick and cheap. if everything was free we would have more automation, robots and computers would be making everything kind of like the factories and self-checkout lines work.

>>3802019
So what's the trade deficit to nature after we imported all the materials to build earth, and who paid the energy bill for the sun to shine for, uhm, 8 billion years?

Could it be that the ass-backwards system of money we use have huge fundamental flaws that artificially exacerbates povery and general misery so that some few selected can be incredibly fucking rich and live like kings, and instead of being greateful they use their wealth as a leverage to claim ownership and so on over things that they are not entitled to.

If they think they could get away with it they would tax sunlight.

>>3802046
You did no such thing.
We don't even know in which genes eye color is written in.
>Father has two Brown eye alleles, so does mother.
>Child has gray eyes
>You can't explain that.

>>3802060

>I propose this: We institute eugenics whilst working on advancing genetic engineering. When we get genetic engineering to the point where it is a viable alternative, we switch over to that.

We can't institute eugenics, period, because it constitutes a gross violation of civil liberties. The compromise is that you will eventually get the benefits of eugenics that you desire, at which point it won't matter whether or not eugenics took place up until that point as all genetic issues can be solved within one or two generations. There is literally no good argument for implementing eugenics now rather than waiting for legalized genetic correction except that you get off on oppressing people.

>>3802074
Civil liberties are bullshit and you know it. If someone has a hereditary disease, they can go about their lives all lovely and happy, but if they try to inflict their disease on our species by reproducing, they are committing a crime against humanity and must be punished.

>>3802087

>Civil liberties are bullshit and you know it.

I cannot know what is not true.

>If someone has a hereditary disease, they can go about their lives all lovely and happy, but if they try to inflict their disease on our species by reproducing, they are committing a crime against humanity and must be punished.

If this genetic damage can be undone in the course of a single generation in the not too distant future it is better to wait for that than to make the world we live in a dystopian fascist hell in the meantime.

>>3802087

Ah, I see what we have here. Another eugenics proponent who believes he won't be effected by it, and will be selected by it to breed for humanity.

Oh the delusions people can have.

>>3802070

> if everything was free we would have more automation, robots and computers

Wait, you mean IF things were free THEN automation and robots would flourish?

>>3802071

>So what's the trade deficit to nature after we imported all the materials to build earth

What do you mean? There is no trade deficit, because there is no trading.

> who paid the energy bill for the sun to shine for, uhm, 8 billion years?

Nobody? What point are you trying to make?

>Could it be that the ass-backwards system of money we use have huge fundamental flaws

Maybe, perhaps you could try pointing out some huge fundamental flaws.

>We institute eugenics
Good luck enforcing that. What are you going to do, put cameras in peoples bedrooms? They'll have sex in the kitchen instead.

And because no one wants to be registret as an eugenic-law offender you'd have a rise in illegal aborts, unregistred births and less medical attention(not to mention secretive homeschooling) for children.

Eugenic laws would serve two purposes: Increasing the amount of dumb, uneducated and miserable people.
Create a very strong feeling of opression in the populance. If voting were allowed, you'd be gone as soon as possible, if not you'd probably die violently due to your policies.

>>3802074
But what if one has lots of good genes like better immune system for example but just a "criminal gene" will cause the good gene to not continue?
there will be a decrease in variation and who knows what good genes/mutations could be lost what you just get rid of the whole and not the bad part.
Don't forget that there's also nurture to account for not just nature.

>>3802094
Wrong. I have haemophilia, and have a vasectomy. I enjoy sex with my wife, without the risk of passing on my disease.

>>3802087

>If someone has a hereditary disease, they can go about their lives all lovely and happy, but if they try to inflict their disease on our species by reproducing, they are committing a crime against humanity and must be punished.

>our species

No its not yours.

>inflict their disease on our species by reproducing, they are committing a crime against humanity and must be punished.

Then lets start with you.
You are on 4chan the pit of the internet, where the social failures and freaks of the world congregate to share their morbid fantasies with eachother.

>>3802100
yes, automation currently is held back because many believe that someone should be getting paid. you can't pay someone when everything is free...
the reason that many can't work is because they don't need to (ie self check out, factories) but then they can't eat because they won't have money.

The reason you americans are opposing eugenics, is because you'd have to admit that some groups are inferior to others (No, I'm not putting myself into the superior group). You believe differences are between individuals and on large scales everyone is equal.

>>3802122

>because many believe that someone should be getting paid

Well, Im pretty sure employers would prefer to not pay the cost of labor.

>. you can't pay someone when everything is free...

Why cant you pay someone to do something when everything is free? Everything of course, only referring to physical goods, and not services, like... prostitution.

>Well, Im pretty sure employers would prefer to not pay the cost of labor.
yes, min. wage - its government forced except when its illegal immigrants doing it
you seem to be looking at it as a one way route, when it would go both ways
>Why cant you pay someone to do something when everything is free? Everything of course, only referring to physical goods, and not services, like... prostitution.

because payment means and exchange of things with equal value - one thing is common (free) the other (labor) is not even needed

Would you pay for something if you didn't have to?
Would you give something away if you didn't have to?
Or would it rather turn into doing something because you can or want to?

>>3801818

freaky pic made me stop scrolling.

mah god.

>>3802100
>perhaps you could try pointing out some huge fundamental flaws.
That 1% of the population more or less dictates how the rest should live. And they earn money from doing so.

That the quality of life, or even life itself, is seen as a business opportunity.

That the celebrated concept of freedom have to be bought, 'freedom is slavery' is a phrase that fits reality awfully well.

That it actively encourages fascist style centralisation of power, the ultimate optimization of profit would happen when you pay nothing to your workers, and when they work themself to death the organ selling division of your company butchers and sells them. Siphoning whatever meager pleasure from the life of the worker and concentrating it as money in your pocket is applauded as business genius.

And then some overpaid economist spews bullshit like 'hurr durr, if we change, we get tragedy of the commons'
Only that we already have it, only that instead of everyone being allowed to take their share while depleting the ground and sea, only a few people are allowed to do the depletion, and they have become utmost efficient at it.

Would I roll myself in wealth and profit at the expense of others if I had the chance? Yes, but that only reinforces my point that we're breeding and encouraging psycopathic behaviour.

Want to know how corporations in unregulated totally free market capitalism looks like? Look at mexican cartels.

>>3802100
>>3802100
>perhaps you could try pointing out some huge fundamental flaws.
That 1% of the population more or less dictates how the rest should live. And they earn money from doing so.

That the quality of life, or even life itself, is seen as a business opportunity.

That the celebrated concept of freedom have to be bought, 'freedom is slavery' is a phrase that fits reality awfully well.

That it actively encourages fascist style centralisation of power, the ultimate optimization of profit would happen when you pay nothing to your workers, and when they work themself to death the organ selling division of your company butchers and sells them. Siphoning whatever meager pleasure from the life of the worker and concentrating it as money in your pocket is applauded as business genius.

And then some overpaid economist spews bullshit like 'hurr durr, if we change, we get tragedy of the commons'
Only that we already have it, only that instead of everyone being allowed to take their share while depleting the ground and sea, only a few people are allowed to do the depletion, and they have become utmost efficient at it.

Would I roll myself in wealth and profit at the expense of others if I had the chance? Yes, but that only reinforces my point that we're breeding and encouraging psycopathic behaviour.

Want to know how corporations in unregulated totally free market capitalism looks like? Look at mexican cartels.

>>3802214
>>3802206
nice dubs

>>3802136
>Everything of course, only referring to physical goods, and not services, like... prostitution.

And this is how the world will end.
Only that physical goods will not be free, they'll still cost, meaning that 98% of the population will be the whores of the 2% owning manufacturing machines, paying their wages to the robots that do all work. Although it might need some further marginalization, only have 98 slaves/employees per rich person is too little, maybe 0,1% rich and 99.9% employees, that way you get 999 whores per rich. More like it I think.

/sci/ - Morals & Racism

>>3802206

This is really getting too vague, and too multifaceted.

Basically you are saying two things:
1. Something really vague, bad, and questionably true
2. Money is responsible for #1

I think, if we want to have a conversation, we need to take things one point at a time, and then in depth discuss how money is or isnt responsible for things. Things like "LIFE IS JUST A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY" doesnt refer to anything concrete or empirical.

>And then some overpaid economist spews bullshit like 'hurr durr, if we change, we get tragedy of the commons'

In what change would we supposedly get a tragedy of commons?

>>3802246
one example is to give businesses more taxes breaks to hire more to fix unemployment. though nothing will really change and money is just thrown around. illegals do the jobs for less and don't count for employment plus all those jobs that already have been taken over by automation.

another is bailing out stupid banks that gave out lots of money. they should have just given to those protected by the SEC in the US and let the stupid banks close - new ones would open up.
(don't get me started on backs as well)

>>3802284
damn it i keep writing banks as backs...

>>3802246
>1. Something really vague, bad, and questionably true
>Hurr hurr I have no clue how to defend my lovely but broken system so I'll sidestep.

But given that you're an economist, someone beliving to know shit but actually being clueless(or knowing to be clueless but lying to the public to the benefit of friends in high places) I guess I shouldn't expect you to provide anything concrete.