Something feels wrong to me about relentless shitting on criminals

[Deleted member 21661]

Not justifying the crimes. But seeing some keyboard warrior seethe about how these criminals should suffer, how they're so subhuman, etc, is off putting. The irony is that this visceral rage against the criminals just shows that these people have the same anger and violent tendencies lol, no mentally stable person thinks that way. Funny how they try to claim moral superiority while literally arguing for why someone should suffer or be killed, etc.
I would accept it more if they were self aware, but still.

 

[alpha_provider]

smart

Guilty, but not responsible? | Rosalind English

Rosalind English: Monsters are born, not made: the latest round in the debate about criminal responsibility questions the very existence of intuitive morality

www.theguardian.com

 

[Deleted member 21661]

smart

Guilty, but not responsible? | Rosalind English

Rosalind English: Monsters are born, not made: the latest round in the debate about criminal responsibility questions the very existence of intuitive morality

www.theguardian.com

Very interesting. Will read more and comment.

Though,
"With contemporary brain scanning technology, other scientists in 2008 were able to predict with 60% accuracy whether subjects would press a button with their left or right hand up to 10 seconds before the subject became aware of having made that choice "

Am I retarded? Or is that not particularly conclusive? If it's just between the left and right hand the chance should be 50%, so unless it's a really huge sample size 60% accuracy shouldn't be that big a deal. Even then tbh, wouldn't necessarily count as a breakthrough.

The case with Libet was interesting though. Reframes the way I think about decision making as a whole, even conscious deliberation. But I assume that's somewhat different. At least, I wonder what the mechanics behind such a process are. What governs the unconscious thought process and how this relates to the conscious thought process, etc
I do know certain psychologists (haven't read much about this because of a lack of interest in psychology, tbh) talk greatly about the unconscious, how it represents a lot of our repressed feelings, and how integrating it better would lead to more personal fulfilment and all that shit. Obvious link to criminality and whatnot here. But I can only use it so much, naturally the unconscious is something I can't fully (intuitively) grasp.

 

[alpha_provider]

Very interesting. Will read more and comment.

Though,
"With contemporary brain scanning technology, other scientists in 2008 were able to predict with 60% accuracy whether subjects would press a button with their left or right hand up to 10 seconds before the subject became aware of having made that choice "

Am I retarded? Or is that not particularly conclusive? If it's just between the left and right hand the chance should be 50%, so unless it's a really huge sample size 60% accuracy shouldn't be that big a deal. Even then tbh, wouldn't necessarily count as a breakthrough.

The case with Libet was interesting though. Reframes the way I think about decision making as a whole, even conscious deliberation. But I assume that's somewhat different. At least, I wonder what the mechanics behind such a process are. What governs the unconscious thought process and how this relates to the conscious thought process, etc
I do know certain psychologists (haven't read much about this because of a lack of interest in psychology, tbh) talk greatly about the unconscious, how it represents a lot of our repressed feelings, and how integrating it better would lead to more personal fulfilment and all that shit. Obvious link to criminality and whatnot here. But I can only use it so much, naturally the unconscious is something I can't fully (intuitively) grasp.

it's a complex issue. i could write essays about it since it's my domain of expertise, but the main dilemma is preemptively depriving people of their basic human rights vs opting out for a more liberal approach and risking the lives of potential victims

there's a solid sam harris' talk on this topic on yt, look it up. more digestible than this dull article

 

[Deleted member 21661]

it's a complex issue. i could write essays about it since it's my domain of expertise, but the main dilemma is preemptively depriving people of their basic human rights vs opting out for a more liberal approach and risking the lives of potential victims

there's a solid sam harris' talk on this topic on yt, look it up. more digestible than this dull article

One of these?

I'll probably watch the video and finish reading the wikipedia for the general topic before I discuss it more though. I'll probably write an essay too since I tend to think about similar but different things.

 

[alpha_provider]

One of these?

I'll probably watch the video and finish reading the wikipedia for the general topic before I discuss it more though. I'll probably write an essay too since I tend to think about similar but different things.

could be, i watched it years ago. i think harris is a bit too dogmatic about free will and islam, but still interesting to listen to

I'll probably watch the video and finish reading the wikipedia for the general topic before I discuss it more though. I'll probably write an essay too since I tend to think about similar but different things.

the problem is, even if we get to the conclusion that criminals didnt really have a choice when committing crimes, we still need to punish them to strengthen the idea of crimes being bad in society, for preventive purposes

 

[Deleted member 21661]

could be, i watched it years ago. i think harris is a bit too dogmatic about free will and islam, but still interesting to listen to

Not looking to follow all his points but just get some more context on the topic anyway

the problem is, even if we get to the conclusion that criminals didnt really have a choice when committing crimes, we still need to punish them to strengthen the idea of crimes being bad in society, for preventive purposes

I think there's an important distinction to make.
I was thinking about this recently, and essentially asked myself. If a criminals memories are wiped, should he still go to jail?
In this case you can't really consider him the same person and equally "responsible". But you might say due to genetics he might commit a crime again.
Then I more so went to the idea of if you can somehow ensure 100% that a criminal won't reoffend (ignore the logistics around this, just say hypothetically), should he still go to jail?
Just the question about whether we should punish the criminals purely because it's moral to do so (idea of following some sort of dharmic law), or you do this purely to prevent repeat offenses/deter potential offenders.
Hard to answer really tbh.
Pragmatism would favor the latter, but you can't deny the simple enough concept of reconciliation for the victims family. Yet at the same time you could argue that reconciliation shouldn't come from one's suffering/punishment no matter what they did. But that's not even the topic now.

 

[NordicLeonhard]

Not justifying the crimes. But seeing some keyboard warrior seethe about how these criminals should suffer, how they're so subhuman, etc, is off putting. The irony is that this visceral rage against the criminals just shows that these people have the same anger and violent tendencies lol, no mentally stable person thinks that way. Funny how they try to claim moral superiority while literally arguing for why someone should suffer or be killed, etc.
I would accept it more if they were self aware, but still.

Well they dont have the same anger and violent tendenices since they didnt commit any crimes? Low iq thread 0

 

[alpha_provider]

Not looking to follow all his points but just get some more context on the topic anyway

I think there's an important distinction to make.
I was thinking about this recently, and essentially asked myself. If a criminals memories are wiped, should he still go to jail?
In this case you can't really consider him the same person and equally "responsible". But you might say due to genetics he might commit a crime again.
Then I more so went to the idea of if you can somehow ensure 100% that a criminal won't reoffend (ignore the logistics around this, just say hypothetically), should he still go to jail?
Just the question about whether we should punish the criminals purely because it's moral to do so (idea of following some sort of dharmic law), or you do this purely to prevent repeat offenses/deter potential offenders.
Hard to answer really tbh.
Pragmatism would favor the latter, but you can't deny the simple enough concept of reconciliation for the victims family. Yet at the same time you could argue that reconciliation shouldn't come from one's suffering/punishment no matter what they did. But that's not even the topic now.

even if you wipe his memories, if he has a deeply ingrained tendency to commit crime/violate socially accepted rules of conduct, it won't do much

but yeah, a complex issue

 

[radicalrationalist]

Well they dont have the same anger and violent tendenices since they didnt commit any crimes? Low iq thread 0

people want to kill criminals because they realize they can be their next target. the thought process is completely different.

 

[Deleted member 32514]

Not justifying the crimes. But seeing some keyboard warrior seethe about how these criminals should suffer, how they're so subhuman, etc, is off putting. The irony is that this visceral rage against the criminals just shows that these people have the same anger and violent tendencies lol, no mentally stable person thinks that way. Funny how they try to claim moral superiority while literally arguing for why someone should suffer or be killed, etc.
I would accept it more if they were self aware, but still.

I used to have Richard Ramirez as my PFP on discord, am i got banned in every non-blackpill server I was in, every server I join I get in an argument with mfs cuz ""muh Muh I hope he rots in hell'" saying it like I support him, even tho I make it clear I have him as PFP cuz he looks good

 

[NordicLeonhard]

people want to kill criminals because they realize they can be their next target. the thought process is completely different.

Yep or theyre just spouting shit online without actually thinking it

 

[Deleted member 21661]

people want to kill criminals because they realize they can be their next target. the thought process is completely different.

Well they dont have the same anger and violent tendenices since they didnt commit any crimes? Low iq thread 0

Not really. You see a lot of people (even ones without kids or younger siblings) angry about children being raped and so on. You see a lot of the similar rage against politicians and such who aren't gonna physically harm you.
You can have tendencies and not act on them. Most criminals repressed their tendencies for most of their lives. Regardless I'm not sure how you can claim to be moral when talking about wanting to kill someone jfl.

 

[Deleted member 11126]

Not justifying the crimes. But seeing some keyboard warrior seethe about how these criminals should suffer, how they're so subhuman, etc, is off putting. The irony is that this visceral rage against the criminals just shows that these people have the same anger and violent tendencies lol, no mentally stable person thinks that way. Funny how they try to claim moral superiority while literally arguing for why someone should suffer or be killed, etc.
I would accept it more if they were self aware, but still.

I got more in common with some thug or a homeless junkie then normies these days.

If we lived in a good society I would agree with the people and say they should be shot. But we live in a such shitty time I really can see why I am 1 bad year away from ending like that.

 

[Deleted member 11126]

I also can see why normies feel this way. You got some drug dealer or some thug who steals shit in Seattle/LA gets no time in prison pays no taxes has kids with multiple women lives a better life then you meanwhile your slaving away paying taxes.

It is the defintion of cucked if I cared at all about society I would say these men should be taken out of society if society was at all decent then I would want it to look like Japan. But I don't want the best for society anymore so I am indifferent to these criminals

 

[New Poster]

No one likes a cheater

 

[Deleted member 21661]

I got more in common with some thug or a homeless junkie then normies these days.

If we lived in a good society I would agree with the people and say they should be shot. But we live in a such shitty time I really can see why I am 1 bad year away from ending like that.

I don't disagree, criminals definitely do need to be punished. But as I said in the thread, more so just for preventative measures. Don't see why you should make this huge ordeal about them suffering.