The New News Thread.

This is the place for topical debate and discussion about anything in the world (non-Queen related).

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:40 pm

Spook2 wrote:
Elessar wrote:
Spook2 wrote:whats your thoughts on James Bulger killers

free to walk the streets?


I wouldn’t say ‘free’. They’ll never be truly free. In fact one of them is back in jail I believe.

Entirely appropriate that they were released. They were 11. They had absolutely no idea what they were doing. That’s not even an opinion, that’s a neurobiological fact.


not disagreeing with you

but when would you say people deserve to be locked up for life / say 20 years

you say

11 year old - No

15 year old - No

16 years and one month - ???


No
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11470
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Spook2 » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:19 pm

not disagreeing with you

but when would you say people deserve to be locked up for life / say 20 years

you say

11 year old - No

15 year old - No

16 years and one month - ???[/quote]

No[/quote]

so at what age 18, 21, what age
 
Spook2
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 8:57 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:22 am

Elessar wrote: They had absolutely no idea what they were doing. That’s not even an opinion, that’s a neurobiological fact.


I don't like this idea of criminals "who didn't know what they were doing, on neurobiological grounds". Not that it isn't true, but it leads to perverse consequences. Wether you use that neurobiological knowledge in judgment of serious crimes, is very much a political choice. And I'm against it, for the following reasons.

because this means, we can never really be sure wether a criminal would commit a crime, again. The one conclusion is to jail them for life, with no means to know wether they would murder someone else when freed.

it also means, since you're referring to neurobiological elements, that people "can" be jailed "even" when they did not commit a crime yet.

if a person is neurobiologically wired to commit a crime, then society has a right to "defend" itself against these individuals, and thus jail them as a means of prevention.

This is a school in penology that came to life with the emergence of positivism. People like Enrico Ferri (with his emphasis os psychological causes of crime) and Lombroso (with his biological emphasis on the causes) implemented positivism in penology, to come up with all of the above.

people like mussolini and Hitler would eagerly assimilate their theories. because their theories allowed them to jail people on the base of biological and racist motives (not saying you're advocating all of this too, but I'd just want you to know the dangers of referring to biological causes for crime)
Last edited by action on Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:32 am, edited 4 times in total.
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2938
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 194 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:26 am

so I guess I'm more related to the "classical" school in penology, that hypotheses that people, when they commit a crime, make a deliberate and considerate CHOICE (away with neurobiological nonsense).

it means, you can and should jail people in the fiersest ways, when they commit a crime. You can't free them when the crime was serious enough. Again, society has a right to defend itself, but unlike in the positivist school, a crime has to be committed first.
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2938
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 194 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:05 am

action wrote:
Elessar wrote: They had absolutely no idea what they were doing. That’s not even an opinion, that’s a neurobiological fact.


I don't like this idea of criminals "who didn't know what they were doing, on neurobiological grounds". Not that it isn't true, but it leads to perverse consequences. Wether you use that neurobiological knowledge in judgment of serious crimes, is very much a political choice. And I'm against it, for the following reasons.

because this means, we can never really be sure wether a criminal would commit a crime, again. The one conclusion is to jail them for life, with no means to know wether they would murder someone else when freed.

it also means, since you're referring to neurobiological elements, that people "can" be jailed "even" when they did not commit a crime yet.

if a person is neurobiologically wired to commit a crime, then society has a right to "defend" itself against these individuals, and thus jail them as a means of prevention.

This is a school in penology that came to life with the emergence of positivism. People like Enrico Ferri (with his emphasis os psychological causes of crime) and Lombroso (with his biological emphasis on the causes) implemented positivism in penology, to come up with all of the above.

people like mussolini and Hitler would eagerly assimilate their theories. because their theories allowed them to jail people on the base of biological and racist motives (not saying you're advocating all of this too, but I'd just want you to know the dangers of referring to biological causes for crime)


You’ve misunderstood me.

I mean that until the early 20s, the frontal lobe hasn’t fully developed. People aren’t as capable of forward planning and of judgement. I’m not saying some people are wired to be criminals; I’m saying that young people aren’t yet wired to fully understand their actions.

Imprisonment is about protecting the public as well as punishment and rehabilitation, so of course a dangerous youngster who has committed a terrible crime should be jailed. But I don’t think there’s any wisdom in continuing to punish a 40+ year old for a crime they committed in their mid-teens.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11470
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:39 am

Elessar wrote:You’ve misunderstood me.

I mean that until the early 20s, the frontal lobe hasn’t fully developed. People aren’t as capable of forward planning and of judgement. I’m not saying some people are wired to be criminals; I’m saying that young people aren’t yet wired to fully understand their actions.


but doesn't it follow then that, all people under 20 be jailed, "just in case"? because you point to neurobiological processes, that are prevalent with all people under 20. Every one of them "doesn't know what they are doing", so they are all potential toddler killers.

I disagree, Elessar. I disagree on biological grounds. You see, it is my understanding that, if biological causes are the cause, that in the burgler case there were "other" neurobiological processes at work, different to those of your ordinary youngsters. Biological processes that, arguably, didn't suddenly dissapear when they got older. Therefore, even on biological grounds, I believe they should still be jailed.

Elessar wrote:Imprisonment is about protecting the public as well as punishment and rehabilitation, so of course a dangerous youngster who has committed a terrible crime should be jailed. But I don’t think there’s any wisdom in continuing to punish a 40+ year old for a crime they committed in their mid-teens.


I agree that rehabilitation has it's purposes, but given that you have referred to neurobiological processes, it is not clear to me how rehabilitation could change them. How can you change a physical thing with rehabilitation? Shouldn't that, theorethically, rather be done by surgery? God, that reminds me of that horrible dining scene in "Hannibal".
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2938
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 194 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:26 am

action wrote:
Elessar wrote:You’ve misunderstood me.

I mean that until the early 20s, the frontal lobe hasn’t fully developed. People aren’t as capable of forward planning and of judgement. I’m not saying some people are wired to be criminals; I’m saying that young people aren’t yet wired to fully understand their actions.


but doesn't it follow then that, all people under 20 be jailed, "just in case"? because you point to neurobiological processes, that are prevalent with all people under 20. Every one of them "doesn't know what they are doing", so they are all potential toddler killers.

I disagree, Elessar. I disagree on biological grounds. You see, it is my understanding that, if biological causes are the cause, that in the burgler case there were "other" neurobiological processes at work, different to those of your ordinary youngsters. Biological processes that, arguably, didn't suddenly dissapear when they got older. Therefore, even on biological grounds, I believe they should still be jailed.

Elessar wrote:Imprisonment is about protecting the public as well as punishment and rehabilitation, so of course a dangerous youngster who has committed a terrible crime should be jailed. But I don’t think there’s any wisdom in continuing to punish a 40+ year old for a crime they committed in their mid-teens.


I agree that rehabilitation has it's purposes, but given that you have referred to neurobiological processes, it is not clear to me how rehabilitation could change them. How can you change a physical thing with rehabilitation? Shouldn't that, theorethically, rather be done by surgery? God, that reminds me of that horrible dining scene in "Hannibal".


You’re still misunderstanding me.

I’m not saying there are neurological causes for youth offenders (although I’m sure there are). I’m saying that their relatively underdeveloped brains are incapable of fully understanding the ramifications of their actions, and the younger they are, the more true that is. Do you remember much of your tenth year? I don’t. I remember a few key moments, birthday parties etc., but they’re mostly memories of memories, mixed in with photos and videos I’ve seen that have refreshed my memory. I didn’t have much of a concept of life and death at all, or of what ‘the rest of my life’ would actually entail.

So on one end of the spectrum there’s a 4 year old who reaches into the glove compartment, grabs his dad’s gun and shoots his little sister dead. On the other end there’s a grown adult who commits pre-meditated murder. In between you’ve got a lot of grey area and room for a lot of nuance, and little point in making broad generalisations.

A dangerous 10 year old will not necessarily grow into a dangerous 40 year old, so it doesn’t follow that a 10 year old’s punishment should continue deep into adulthood. Although fictional, think of Morgan Freeman’s speech to the parole board in The Shawshank Redemption.

And no, I don’t think lobotomies are the solution either. Anything that can learned can be unlearned - it just might be very, very difficult in some cases.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11470
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:22 am

Elessar wrote:

I’m not saying there are neurological causes for youth offenders (although I’m sure there are). I’m saying that their relatively underdeveloped brains are incapable of fully understanding the ramifications of their actions, and the younger they are, the more true that is. Do you remember much of your tenth year? I don’t. I remember a few key moments, birthday parties etc., but they’re mostly memories of memories, mixed in with photos and videos I’ve seen that have refreshed my memory. I didn’t have much of a concept of life and death at all, or of what ‘the rest of my life’ would actually entail.


this does not have anything to do with the burglar murders. of the billions of youngsters, only they have ganged up and murdered a toddler. yes, they were young. Yes, they didn't have much concept of life. still, so do millions of other youngsters and they didn't murder anyone. the bulgler murderers did, and they need to be punished.

Elessar wrote:So on one end of the spectrum there’s a 4 year old who reaches into the glove compartment, grabs his dad’s gun and shoots his little sister dead. On the other end there’s a grown adult who commits pre-meditated murder. In between you’ve got a lot of grey area and room for a lot of nuance, and little point in making broad generalisations.


all true. but it's the consequence you apply to these murders, that I disagree with.

Elessar wrote:A dangerous 10 year old will not necessarily grow into a dangerous 40 year old, so it doesn’t follow that a 10 year old’s punishment should continue deep into adulthood. Although fictional, think of Morgan Freeman’s speech to the parole board in The Shawshank Redemption.


"not necessarily". that enough to let them free? because of a possibility?

I'd say, it's just as likely that they WILL commit another crime. we just don't know. If you're going to release them, then please prove with 100% certainty that they will not commit another crime. But you can't. "not necessarily", you say. I'm sorry, that's just not good enough.

I'm a follower of the classical school, which doesn't struggle with these uncertainties: they committed a murder, so they should be imprisoned for life.

Elessar wrote:And no, I don’t think lobotomies are the solution either. Anything that can learned can be unlearned - it just might be very, very difficult in some cases.


what is the solution then? you offer no convincing alternative to a life imprisonment, to ensure that they will not commit other crimes. it's all hypothesis. society has a right to defend itself against murderers, and you can't offer me certainty that all will be safe and well, when they get released.
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2938
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 194 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:53 am

action wrote:
Elessar wrote:

I’m not saying there are neurological causes for youth offenders (although I’m sure there are). I’m saying that their relatively underdeveloped brains are incapable of fully understanding the ramifications of their actions, and the younger they are, the more true that is. Do you remember much of your tenth year? I don’t. I remember a few key moments, birthday parties etc., but they’re mostly memories of memories, mixed in with photos and videos I’ve seen that have refreshed my memory. I didn’t have much of a concept of life and death at all, or of what ‘the rest of my life’ would actually entail.


this does not have anything to do with the burglar murders. of the billions of youngsters, only they have ganged up and murdered a toddler. yes, they were young. Yes, they didn't have much concept of life. still, so do millions of other youngsters and they didn't murder anyone. the bulgler murderers did, and they need to be punished.


They were punished. They were incarcerated from 1992 until 2000.


Elessar wrote:So on one end of the spectrum there’s a 4 year old who reaches into the glove compartment, grabs his dad’s gun and shoots his little sister dead. On the other end there’s a grown adult who commits pre-meditated murder. In between you’ve got a lot of grey area and room for a lot of nuance, and little point in making broad generalisations.


all true. but it's the consequence you apply to these murders, that I disagree with.


So what are you proposing? Lifelong incarceration for anyone of any age who kills someone?


Elessar wrote:A dangerous 10 year old will not necessarily grow into a dangerous 40 year old, so it doesn’t follow that a 10 year old’s punishment should continue deep into adulthood. Although fictional, think of Morgan Freeman’s speech to the parole board in The Shawshank Redemption.


"not necessarily". that enough to let them free? because of a possibility?

I'd say, it's just as likely that they WILL commit another crime. we just don't know. If you're going to release them, then please prove with 100% certainty that they will not commit another crime. But you can't. "not necessarily", you say. I'm sorry, that's just not good enough.

I'm a follower of the classical school, which doesn't struggle with these uncertainties: they committed a murder, so they should be imprisoned for life.


You can’t prove anything with 100% certainty. Before you ridiculed the idea of jailing all 20 year olds on the basis that they ‘could’ commit a crime, but now you’re suggesting that exact same thing for people within a subset of that group.

In any case, the whole purpose of a parole system is to maximise the chances of a successful release.


Elessar wrote:And no, I don’t think lobotomies are the solution either. Anything that can learned can be unlearned - it just might be very, very difficult in some cases.


what is the solution then? you offer no convincing alternative to a life imprisonment, to ensure that they will not commit other crimes. it's all hypothesis. society has a right to defend itself against murderers, and you can't offer me certainty that all will be safe and well, when they get released.


Well the solution must start with prevention.

But failing that, there’s no point in trying to deal with absolutes. Some will never be safe for release. Some will be successfully rehabilitated. There’s an entire work force dedicated to this.

But if you don’t believe in rehabilitation at all, and think of imprisonments purely as protection of the public (+/- punishment/revenge) then you might as well advocate capital punishment.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11470
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:08 pm

Rehabilitation is sensible for certain crimes. think of petty shoplifting. or drug abuse. certainly in the case of Drug abuse, rehabilitation should be the first option. if the rehabilitation fails, then the worst thing that can happen is they relapse. but no worries, we'll try again then.

I don't think rehabilitation is the right answer to murder. if rehabilitation fails and he commits another murder, are you gonna say "oops, guess we'll have to try better next time"?

rehabilitation failed, someone screwed up. who is going to take responsability. I guess you won't, hiding behind the way science works and the lack of 100% certainty. While that very reason, was why I refused to let them free in the first place.

I could even "start" to consider your proposition, if the two murderers were living perfect crimeless lives since then, but even that is clearly not the case. there is child porn involved, for one thing.

litterally every box that's a contra-indication to releasing them, has been ticked.

and at no point did I ridicule anything you said.
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2938
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 194 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:47 pm

action wrote:Rehabilitation is sensible for certain crimes. think of petty shoplifting. or drug abuse. certainly in the case of Drug abuse, rehabilitation should be the first option. if the rehabilitation fails, then the worst thing that can happen is they relapse. but no worries, we'll try again then.

I don't think rehabilitation is the right answer to murder. if rehabilitation fails and he commits another murder, are you gonna say "oops, guess we'll have to try better next time"?

rehabilitation failed, someone screwed up. who is going to take responsability. I guess you won't, hiding behind the way science works and the lack of 100% certainty. While that very reason, was why I refused to let them free in the first place.


But you also said:

action wrote:but doesn't it follow then that, all people under 20 be jailed, "just in case"? because you point to neurobiological processes, that are prevalent with all people under 20. Every one of them "doesn't know what they are doing", so they are all potential toddler killers.


We can hopefully agree that it is nigh on impossible to predict with absolute certainty that any individual isn’t going to become a murderer.

It’s also pretty obvious that someone who has killed before is more likely to kill again than your average man on the street.

What I don’t get is how you jump to say that previous criminality, alone, is enough of a risk factor to necessitate lifelong incarceration. It wouldn’t be too difficult to devise a scenario in which someone with an unblemished past is more likely to kill someone than someone with a conviction for murder (for some ideas, just watch Minority Report).

If you think that lifelong imprisonment is the only acceptable punishment or revenge, or that rehabilitation can only be achieved over an entire lifetime, then that’s a different discussion and I dare say we’ll disagree there too. But the idea that lifelong imprisonment is the only way to ensure public safety is, in my opinion, unfounded.


I could even "start" to consider your proposition, if the two murderers were living perfect crimeless lives since then, but even that is clearly not the case. there is child porn involved, for one thing.

litterally every box that's a contra-indication to releasing them, has been ticked.

and at no point did I ridicule anything you said.


One of them is back in jail for possession of child porn.
The other one has, as far as we’re aware, kept himself out of trouble for the last 19 years. I’d say a 50% success rate, with the failure being for a non-violent crime with no new victims, represents a successful endeavour.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11470
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:28 pm

you're a positivist. You try to understand the biological and / or psychological processes between crime. this is the reason, you question the need to jail a 10 year old murderer for life. Your definition of "guilt" is highly dependent on biological and positivistic parameters.

As I said, I'm of the "classical" school. My approach is much more straightforward: everyone is supposed to be able to make conscious decisions. this supposition is not subject to criticism (in the objective absence of more accurate data, and until science is advanced enough to provide more certain conclusions). the reason for this excessive approach, is the right and the need for society to protect itself. We've got two murderers of a toddler. It's crisis, and action needs to be taken. A lifetime sentence is both a gift to the murderer (we could have also just applied capital punishment) and a definite security measure for society. Lifetime imprisonment gives far more guarantees that another murder wont be committed, than if we freed them.

the severeness of the crime, warrants the severeness of the punishment.

Being 10 years old at the crime does not make the facts any less grave. When you're 10 years old, you're able to make conscious decisions. evidence of this conscious approach is in the crimes themselves and the way they were performend. it's nothing like a toddler finding a gun and shooting it by accident. It's not as much a grey zone as you make it out to be. it's really full blown conscious decision, the way this murder was committed.
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2938
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 194 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:15 pm

So at what point between the ages of 3 and 10 do you think children gain the ability to make informed decisions that affect the rest of their lives? The victim willingly went with his killers, but we surely wouldn’t say he made an informed decision.

How many big decisions about your life did you make as a child or very young adult? I made a few, and whilst I’m glad that things panned out the way they did, I look back now and think there’s no way I was ready to make that kind of decision.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11470
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:53 pm

Elessar wrote:So at what point between the ages of 3 and 10 do you think children gain the ability to make informed decisions that affect the rest of their lives? The victim willingly went with his killers, but we surely wouldn’t say he made an informed decision.


a sentence needs to be applied, on a case-by-case basis.

even a 10 year old can make an uneducated decision. he too, can find a gun and "accidently" fire it. there is no age limit applicable here. As I said, a case to case base. In the bulgar case, the facts themselves show a conscious decision, between two individuals. Planning and careful execution went behind the crime. How is it not a 100% conscious decision? As a result, the fiercest punishment should apply. But the 10 year old who finds a gun and accidently fires it, shouldn't spend a day in jail. Case-to-case Elessar. Else, we wouldn't need courtrooms.

Elessar wrote:How many big decisions about your life did you make as a child or very young adult? I made a few, and whilst I’m glad that things panned out the way they did, I look back now and think there’s no way I was ready to make that kind of decision.


most of the decisions I made are of so little importance, they have left very few traces to this day. As for the more important decisions? I guess they made me the man I am today. With a family, a BMW and money on the bank. I didn't fucking murder a toddler
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2938
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 194 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:19 pm

action wrote:
Elessar wrote:So at what point between the ages of 3 and 10 do you think children gain the ability to make informed decisions that affect the rest of their lives? The victim willingly went with his killers, but we surely wouldn’t say he made an informed decision.


a sentence needs to be applied, on a case-by-case basis.

even a 10 year old can make an uneducated decision. he too, can find a gun and "accidently" fire it. there is no age limit applicable here. As I said, a case to case base. In the bulgar case, the facts themselves show a conscious decision, between two individuals. Planning and careful execution went behind the crime. How is it not a 100% conscious decision? As a result, the fiercest punishment should apply. But the 10 year old who finds a gun and accidently fires it, shouldn't spend a day in jail. Case-to-case Elessar. Else, we wouldn't need courtrooms.



Good point.

Well, the case of Jamie Bulger’s killers was indeed dealt with in a courtroom, and the two killers dealt with individually on a case by case basis.

So what’s the problem?
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11470
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 185 times

PreviousNext

Return to Views Of The World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests