Another Libertarian theory fails in experimental reality.

[ladajo]

"There is no point in leaving the culprits alive. They should be arrested and hanged in front of people for this heinous crime," the woman told NDTV.com

Heinous Act

So what do you say to this woman? Is she off her rocker to say that the three a-holes that raped and killed her three daughters, ages 5 to 11, should be rehabilitated, hugged, and returned to society? I think they should be dead. This qualifies as such a heinous crime, there is no recovery. You choose, you do, you pay. I call it Social Contract. When you break it so violently and specifically, you no longer deserve to be part of it. Adios.

How many offenders do not offend again?

[GIThruster]

The problem is, most people want to feel sophisticated and above capital punishment. They'll state that it's wrong on any grounds they can,most often based on the argument that mwe make mistakes in incarceration and in the death penelty as well, and that the death penalty is wrong bnecause it cannot be undone. What they don't realize is, that all wrongful incarceration is wrong. It's all horrific. That's not an argument to not incarcerate, but rather to avoid wrongful incarcerations in every way possible.

[Stubby]

Just waiting for you to pull out your wise old professor and his little bit of insanity.

How can you place wrongful incarceration at the same level as wrongful execution? A ripple in a pond versus a tsunami.
You always do this. False equivalency.
There are always going to be errors in the administration of justice, everyone knows this. We know that all wrongful incarceration is wrong. I think as a whole the system tries to avoid wrongful incarceration as much as possible.
People, given the choice, will probably accept wrongful incarceration as a price for the society we enjoy. They almost assuredly would not accept wrongful execution. How very selfish of them.

You can get an apology (unless you are in Texas) and compensation for wrongful compensation.
You might get a nice headstone for a wrongful execution but you won't care very much.

[williatw]

"There is no point in leaving the culprits alive. They should be arrested and hanged in front of people for this heinous crime," the woman told NDTV.com

Heinous Act

So what do you say to this woman? Is she off her rocker to say that the three a-holes that raped and killed her three daughters, ages 5 to 11, should be rehabilitated, hugged, and returned to society? I think they should be dead. This qualifies as such a heinous crime, there is no recovery. You choose, you do, you pay. I call it Social Contract. When you break it so violently and specifically, you no longer deserve to be part of it. Adios.

How many offenders do not offend again?

The only argument you can make against the death penalty IMHO is that obviously if you make a mistake there is no way to undo it. All the other arguments, it is "barbaric", "uncivilized" etc. are hopelessly subjective in nature. The argument that it is only acceptable if it is a "deterrence" doesn't hold water either. Heinreich Himmler, Hitler, Pol Pot, dahmer, deserved the punishment of death whether it deters some future maniac or not. Of course with brain fingerprinting and some such future more reliable lie detection technology on the horizon, there may come a point in time when the possibility of error in guilt is virtually eliminated, in which case I expect there to be a huge uptake in executions, even in liberal democracies.

[MSimon]

When it comes to sex, demand is much greater than supply. Even with all the loose women about these days. Even as a young man in the 60s and fairly successful with the ladies (yeah that one surprised me too) I never got all I wanted. But I never liked prostitutes (two experiences total) because I like affection with sex. Wham. Bam. Thank you mam. Never satisfied me. Even for a minute.

The only question then is what method of regulation produces the least harm.

Nevada seems to think that well regulated legal brothels is the answer to that question.

What utopians of all stripes forget is that there is no perfect system. The best you can do is minimize the harm. You can't eliminate it. That goes for the gun prohibitionists and their opponents the drug prohibitionists. Both have a belief in utopia. I gave up that sort of magical thinking a very long time ago. It is possible I never had it to begin with.

The problem with the sex business is that it is disreputable and thus doesn't attract honest management.

I have been a fan of strip clubs (in my younger years). Even took the first mate a few times so she could see what I was up to. There was one club I used to frequent and I'd talk to the girls between shows when they would mingle. The club was Frank Gay's "Marquee". Run by an ex-minister. The girls used to tell me that they preferred working there because it required none of the usual hustles (high priced drinks for the girls if the customer ordered, private shows, prostitution) and they were well treated. Of course the Blue Noses shut it down eventually. What are the odds your minister or rabbi will be running a strip club or brothel to make the lives of the girls better? Very, very slim, and none. The Baptist (generally) is the bootlegger's best friend. Fortunately their moral rectitude is not in doubt. By them.

My general rule - you can not create utopia by force. My understanding is that Jesus was of a similar opinion. "Christians" of course know better. Amusing.

[MSimon]

Now you might want to do something effective about prostitution. And there is something that will work:

A study of 200 juvenile and adult street prostitutes documented extremely high levels of sexual child abuse in their background. Sixty percent of the subjects were sexually exploited by an average of two people each, over an average period of 20 months. Two-thirds were sexually abused by father figures. The abuse had extremely negative emotional, physical, and attitudinal impacts. Seventy percent of the women reported that the sexual exploitation definitely affected their decision to become a prostitute. The others reflected the influence in their open-ended comments. Findings make a unique contribution to both the studies of the antecedents to prostitution, and the long-term impacts of sexual child abuse.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3481900508

==========

Of course we see similar results when it comes to opiate abuse.

Then while he was doing his research, an article came out in the Journal of the American Medical Association that said that the addiction rate goes up for male sexually abused children. And it doesn't just double or triple. It is 25 to 50 times higher than the rest of the population. Approximately 70% of the women in drug rehab experienced sexual abuse before they started on drugs. In other words, those heroine addicts not in actual physical pain are suffering from severe post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. What is the preferred treatment in America today for these hurt and humiliated souls? We don't deal with the pain that made them liable for drug abuse. We ask that before they can be healed that they heal themselves by giving up drugs. And then we wonder why rehab for hard-core addicts does not work too well. But how could it when the treatment does not match the disease.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/09/heroin.html

======

Now you would think the "moralists" would be all over this. You would be wrong. Their chief joy in life is not preventing immorality but punishing its victims. A strange addiction. But I guess it takes all kinds.

[Skipjack]

The problem is, most people want to feel sophisticated and above capital punishment. They'll state that it's wrong on any grounds they can,most often based on the argument that mwe make mistakes in incarceration and in the death penelty as well, and that the death penalty is wrong bnecause it cannot be undone. What they don't realize is, that all wrongful incarceration is wrong. It's all horrific. That's not an argument to not incarcerate, but rather to avoid wrongful incarcerations in every way possible.

Yes, both is horrible but being wrongfully executed is infinitely worse.
And mistakes do happen:
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-man-convict ... 16196.html

[Diogenes]

When it comes to sex, demand is much greater than supply. Even with all the loose women about these days. Even as a young man in the 60s and fairly successful with the ladies (yeah that one surprised me too) I never got all I wanted. But I never liked prostitutes (two experiences total) because I like affection with sex. Wham. Bam. Thank you mam. Never satisfied me. Even for a minute.

The only question then is what method of regulation produces the least harm.

Nevada seems to think that well regulated legal brothels is the answer to that question.

What utopians of all stripes forget is that there is no perfect system. The best you can do is minimize the harm. You can't eliminate it. That goes for the gun prohibitionists and their opponents the drug prohibitionists. Both have a belief in utopia. I gave up that sort of magical thinking a very long time ago. It is possible I never had it to begin with.

I was going along with you till you started the crap about equating gun prohibitionists with drug prohibitionists, and equating both of them to Utopians. The one thing is not the equivalent of the other, nor equivalent to the third.

It is axiomatic that any system is going to have some losses, and all you can hope to accomplish is to minimize them. Accepting that you are going to have some losses is the only realistic way of managing a problem. Exceptions are rare, but they do exist. Some diseases, when once eradicated, stay eradicated.

My general rule - you can not create utopia by force.

Utopia = Perpetual motion, and does not exist. You can, however, prevent Dystopia. In any case, Burke beat you to your philosophy some 200 + years ago.


The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered.

[Diogenes]

Now you might want to do something effective about prostitution. And there is something that will work:

A study of 200 juvenile and adult street prostitutes documented extremely high levels of sexual child abuse in their background. Sixty percent of the subjects were sexually exploited by an average of two people each, over an average period of 20 months. Two-thirds were sexually abused by father figures. The abuse had extremely negative emotional, physical, and attitudinal impacts. Seventy percent of the women reported that the sexual exploitation definitely affected their decision to become a prostitute. The others reflected the influence in their open-ended comments. Findings make a unique contribution to both the studies of the antecedents to prostitution, and the long-term impacts of sexual child abuse.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3481900508

As I was reading this, I just knew this next part was coming.

==========

Of course we see similar results when it comes to opiate abuse.

Then while he was doing his research, an article came out in the Journal of the American Medical Association that said that the addiction rate goes up for male sexually abused children. And it doesn't just double or triple. It is 25 to 50 times higher than the rest of the population. Approximately 70% of the women in drug rehab experienced sexual abuse before they started on drugs. In other words, those heroine addicts not in actual physical pain are suffering from severe post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. What is the preferred treatment in America today for these hurt and humiliated souls? We don't deal with the pain that made them liable for drug abuse. We ask that before they can be healed that they heal themselves by giving up drugs. And then we wonder why rehab for hard-core addicts does not work too well. But how could it when the treatment does not match the disease.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/09/heroin.html

======

Simon, i'll accept your argument that sexual abuse causes drug addiction if you accept the argument that homosexual sex abuse causes homosexuality. And here is my quote and obligatory JAMA study link to support the contention.

Adolescent boys, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual than peers who had not been abused (P<.001)

Now accept or reject both of these equivalent contentions and let me know which way you prefer to argue this. I'm good either way. It would appear that the solution to both problems ought to involve some sort of method to prevent the child abuse, rather than indulging the pathology, don't you think?

Now you would think the "moralists" would be all over this. You would be wrong. Their chief joy in life is not preventing immorality but punishing its victims. A strange addiction. But I guess it takes all kinds.

Some people enjoy attributing characteristics to others in order to paint them as "the other." (in it's metaphysical sense.) I wonder how it is you decide everyone must be motivated by schadenfreude rather than prudence?

[Diogenes]

The problem is, most people want to feel sophisticated and above capital punishment. They'll state that it's wrong on any grounds they can,most often based on the argument that mwe make mistakes in incarceration and in the death penelty as well, and that the death penalty is wrong bnecause it cannot be undone. What they don't realize is, that all wrongful incarceration is wrong. It's all horrific. That's not an argument to not incarcerate, but rather to avoid wrongful incarcerations in every way possible.

Yes, both is horrible but being wrongfully executed is infinitely worse.
And mistakes do happen:
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-man-convict ... 16196.html

I have long been a critic of the methodology used by the court system. They often place too much weight on testimony and evidence that is of little actual value in determining what is the truth. I have long felt that the death penalty should be used only in such cases as the evidence is compelling and of good quality.

Witness testimony is usually one of the worst pieces of evidence. Unfortunately, many jurors don't really think things through. They often don't have the mental acuity necessary to process the information presented to weed out the contradictory or implausible parts.

I count many juries as working about as well as our Democracy works. Not very well at all.

[MSimon]

I was going along with you till you started the crap about equating gun prohibitionists with drug prohibitionists, and equating both of them to Utopians. The one thing is not the equivalent of the other, nor equivalent to the third.

And the same argument is used by the drug legalizers/gun prohibitionists in reverse.

Let me explain in simple term that even you will misunderstand.

Prohibition doesn't work.

You can fill the jails. No doubt. But you can't stop people from doing what they really want to do. The question then is: does jailing serve as enough of a deterrent to reduce the behavior in question? Or does it increase the criminal element by promoting a black market which encourages entry into the market with economic incentives?

You need better than 99% willingness to follow the law (maybe as high as 99.9%) for a law to be effective. Once you have even 5% willing to break the law, the law is useless because punishment is not sure and jailing becomes very expensive both socially and economically. Look at illegal opiate use in America. About 1.3% of the population violates the law. The same number that used opiates before opiate prohibition was instituted. And who is that 1.3%? A large cohort was sexually abused in childhood.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/09/heroin.html

And when the jailing is racially motivated?

http://youtu.be/72Lf9ZQK8t0

These days that becomes explosive - if generally known. I'm doing my part to make it known.

The law is a blunt tool. And it is often counter productive. Especially so when it doesn't produce the results intended. Then there comes a clamor for harsher laws. That can go on for a long time until the law system collapses.

[MSimon]

D,

You will be punished by our system of government for your love of prohibition.

It is already underway. The best you can do to save what you wish to save is to renounce prohibition as a concept. It is doubtful that your thinking is supple enough to do that. Most people stop thinking past age 25.

Our government typically phase lags the real world. And what do you get out of a lagged system with enough gain? Oscillation. Which is why fewer laws are better generally for system stability. People can adapt to changing circumstances faster than government can.

The libertarian ideal if you will.

I make that point in a similar context here:

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/02/gove ... se-lagged/

Here is one pertinent to our discussion by my friend Eric on the gun question:

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/02/a-cl ... e-succeed/

[Skipjack]

The problem is, most people want to feel sophisticated and above capital punishment. They'll state that it's wrong on any grounds they can,most often based on the argument that mwe make mistakes in incarceration and in the death penelty as well, and that the death penalty is wrong bnecause it cannot be undone. What they don't realize is, that all wrongful incarceration is wrong. It's all horrific. That's not an argument to not incarcerate, but rather to avoid wrongful incarcerations in every way possible.

Yes, both is horrible but being wrongfully executed is infinitely worse.
And mistakes do happen:
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-man-convict ... 16196.html

I have long been a critic of the methodology used by the court system. They often place too much weight on testimony and evidence that is of little actual value in determining what is the truth. I have long felt that the death penalty should be used only in such cases as the evidence is compelling and of good quality.

Witness testimony is usually one of the worst pieces of evidence. Unfortunately, many jurors don't really think things through. They often don't have the mental acuity necessary to process the information presented to weed out the contradictory or implausible parts.

I count many juries as working about as well as our Democracy works. Not very well at all.

As long as humans are involved with the process, mistakes will be made. Investigators and prosecutors are pressured to bring "successes" and thus evidence is rushed, testimonies are overvalued and mistakes are made.
I do believe in the system in general, but I do think that like every complex system, we need to have a tolerance for error and redundant savety mechanisms, especially when human lives are at stake.

[ladajo]

I think the real trick is in what is seen as the definition of "Due Process".
It seems to have become so corrupted of intent and content, that it is no longer possible to consider the process as "Due". In my humble opinion the root of the issue is that the legal system bas become a self licking ice-cream cone where lawyers seek to complicate and obfuscate to further the need to have them, and do so by not only pressing the legal system beyond reasonable bounds, but also in that they are the primary source of law makers, and frequently flip back and forth, or even straddle the fence.

Reason left the building a while back. Now it is all about money, power and prestige.
Seems to me to be a fundamental conflict of interest that most of folks that make the laws are also most of the ones who seek to profit from them.
Practicing law, like "The Free Press" should not be allowed to function as "For Profit".
There should also be an inherant decoupling of the body of law makers from the body of law practicers. I really think that the citizen aggregate shold provide the "Reason" (laws) in the system, and then lawyers can be the ones to intepret/apply. After all, if a jury of peers is the intended mechanism of passing judgement, why not a true jury of peers that passes legislation?
Lawyers should not be allowed to be politicians.

And, folks that are not net contributors to society should not be allowed to vote. While you are on the take, you should not be allowed to decide what your take is. Let those who foot the burden decide. They can decide up or down, as things warrant.

[Diogenes]

D,

You will be punished by our system of government for your love of prohibition.

So your tactic is to completely ignore the fact that i've got your number in that last argument? (You know, where you cite sex abuse as the cause of prostitution , but refuse to accept that homosexual sex abuse causes homosexual activity.)

I somehow suspect I have forever more shut down any future attempts by you to link prostitution to sex abuse. (at least when you think *I* might be present) I suppose not having to listen to one more nonsensical argument is about the only benefit i'm going to get out of countering your own argument with a variation of your own argument.


It's not the sort of win I was hoping for (I was hoping you would address the issue.) but if that's all I can get, I suppose i'll have to take it.


Oh, and I don't love prohibition. I would much prefer a world where childish adults would restrain themselves from dangerous tampering with their brain chemicals, but as Burke said.



Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791).
-- Edmund Burke