What Would You Do?
March 23, 2005 6:33 AM Subscribe
Chicago Poet = Massachusetts Killer. J.J. Jameson lived as a Chicago Type for two decades. We knew him as an old-time activist. An eccentric, somewhat disheveled open-mic reader. An author (scroll down or search page for “cauliflower”). A heavy drinker who tried recovery at least once. A quick-wit rabble-rouser. In short, a Chicago guy, despite the New England accent. He was also the #1 Most Wanted Killer back east. My only question is: if you had killed two people, escaped from prison, turned around an saw no one chasing you, and could end up anywhere you wanted, would you choose to build a life in the influential if somewhat goofball and seasonally cold Chicago Poetry Scene? Or would you go the Caribbean route?
Put me down for the Caribbean option. I wouldn't want to go to a place that's even colder in winter than Montreal, fer chrissakes.
posted by clevershark at 6:41 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by clevershark at 6:41 AM on March 23, 2005
I love how they claim he "Posed" as a poet. Also
According to Boston television station WCVB, Porter's fingerprints were recently matched with those of a suspect arrested on a theft charge in Chicago in 1993 using the Jameson alias.
Amazing. Even with everything going on, he still couldn't stay out of trouble. But I guess getting released in '93 must have made him feel invincible.
posted by delmoi at 6:44 AM on March 23, 2005
According to Boston television station WCVB, Porter's fingerprints were recently matched with those of a suspect arrested on a theft charge in Chicago in 1993 using the Jameson alias.
Amazing. Even with everything going on, he still couldn't stay out of trouble. But I guess getting released in '93 must have made him feel invincible.
posted by delmoi at 6:44 AM on March 23, 2005
After reading the whole article you have to wonder, what was Dukakis thinking? The guy commited two murders, and Dukakis wanted to commute his sentence? No wonder the state has elected several Republicans to fill his post ever since. I consider myself pretty middle of the road politically, and even I can't understand the logic on that one. He was a model prisoner. So what? 20 years of making the best of prison, so we should let a murderer of two men go free. No wonder Bush creamed him with the whole Willie Horton thing.
posted by inthe80s at 6:44 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by inthe80s at 6:44 AM on March 23, 2005
Chicago is colder than Montreal? That doesn't sound right.
posted by nebulawindphone at 6:49 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by nebulawindphone at 6:49 AM on March 23, 2005
What delmoi said about his release in '93, and alos what inthe80s said.
Where does all this compassion for brutal murderers come from, anyway?
I really don't get that at all.
posted by 1016 at 6:51 AM on March 23, 2005
Where does all this compassion for brutal murderers come from, anyway?
I really don't get that at all.
posted by 1016 at 6:51 AM on March 23, 2005
What delmoi said about his release in '93, and also what inthe80s said.
Where does all this compassion for brutal murderers come from, anyway?
I really don't get that at all.
posted by 1016 at 6:52 AM on March 23, 2005
Where does all this compassion for brutal murderers come from, anyway?
I really don't get that at all.
posted by 1016 at 6:52 AM on March 23, 2005
Well, I'll be damned... Montreal is colder than Chicago after all. Disregard my comment on the subject then :-)
posted by clevershark at 6:56 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by clevershark at 6:56 AM on March 23, 2005
Oops...tried to correct a misspelling and somehow double-posted...sorry.
posted by 1016 at 6:59 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by 1016 at 6:59 AM on March 23, 2005
It took 12 years to match his fingerprints? Y'mean, crime solving isn't like CSI-CSI-CSI or Law&Order, Law&Order, Law&Order, Law&Order, Law&Order? :)
posted by etaoin at 7:14 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by etaoin at 7:14 AM on March 23, 2005
Well, I would just be curious what the incidents from 89-93 were. Were they traffic stops, or were they destroying school busses full of nuns?
I know it's all swell to rag on Dukakis on this thread, and the concept of progressive reform he represented, but gosh darnit you still have to hold the optimistic hope that people can reform or be rehabilitated. Sincerely, what hope is there of a prison system where it is just a pen and not a system of reintroducing someone into society? I admit I may be eating crow when we find out the arrests were for swashbuckling while under amphetamines.. but since they did not list the incidents I'm waging they were more minor infractions. Minor , i.e., in the scale between killing a man and stealing a pack of gum.
I mean, come on, he was a poet who worked for a Church! That's pretty model of reform IMO. Shame about the misspent youth :p. On the side of the murder victims, I'm glad they have some sense of vindication. Isn't that all we're really talking about here? You do unto me, I do unto you. Oh well, now I'm rambling..
posted by cavalier at 7:15 AM on March 23, 2005
I know it's all swell to rag on Dukakis on this thread, and the concept of progressive reform he represented, but gosh darnit you still have to hold the optimistic hope that people can reform or be rehabilitated. Sincerely, what hope is there of a prison system where it is just a pen and not a system of reintroducing someone into society? I admit I may be eating crow when we find out the arrests were for swashbuckling while under amphetamines.. but since they did not list the incidents I'm waging they were more minor infractions. Minor , i.e., in the scale between killing a man and stealing a pack of gum.
I mean, come on, he was a poet who worked for a Church! That's pretty model of reform IMO. Shame about the misspent youth :p. On the side of the murder victims, I'm glad they have some sense of vindication. Isn't that all we're really talking about here? You do unto me, I do unto you. Oh well, now I'm rambling..
posted by cavalier at 7:15 AM on March 23, 2005
While serving his sentences, Porter, according to news accounts, became ``the darling of the progressive and reform-minded academic community'
God, people are suckers. Dosen't anybody remember this guy? Shit like this probably created more conservatives back in the day than just about anything else.
posted by jonmc at 7:18 AM on March 23, 2005
God, people are suckers. Dosen't anybody remember this guy? Shit like this probably created more conservatives back in the day than just about anything else.
posted by jonmc at 7:18 AM on March 23, 2005
All that and the editor of the Daily Bugle too. Wow.
posted by eatyourlunch at 7:21 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by eatyourlunch at 7:21 AM on March 23, 2005
Shit like this probably created more conservatives back in the day than just about anything else.
I wonder if that's what turned Ted Bundy into a Republican :-)
posted by clevershark at 7:26 AM on March 23, 2005
I wonder if that's what turned Ted Bundy into a Republican :-)
posted by clevershark at 7:26 AM on March 23, 2005
Caribbean.
I used to think that being called "J.J.J." would be perfect, sort of trumping "J.J." as a great name.
Not anymore.
posted by dfowler at 7:28 AM on March 23, 2005
I used to think that being called "J.J.J." would be perfect, sort of trumping "J.J." as a great name.
Not anymore.
posted by dfowler at 7:28 AM on March 23, 2005
I wonder if that's what turned Ted Bundy into a Republican :-)
Heh.
I remember though, that the biggest criticisms of liberals back in 70's and 80's was that they were soft on crime, and spectacularly public blunders like this guy and Abbott don't do a whole lot to counter that impression.
posted by jonmc at 7:34 AM on March 23, 2005
Heh.
I remember though, that the biggest criticisms of liberals back in 70's and 80's was that they were soft on crime, and spectacularly public blunders like this guy and Abbott don't do a whole lot to counter that impression.
posted by jonmc at 7:34 AM on March 23, 2005
as cavalier said, it strikes me as a clear case of rehabilitation. I mean, if you don't believe someone can change, immediately after escaping this guy should have entered some 7/11 and killed everybody. Instead he went on to make a new life elsewhere.
Obviously there are the victms to consider, but I still think a criminal system based only on revenge is flawed.
posted by nkyad at 7:46 AM on March 23, 2005
Obviously there are the victms to consider, but I still think a criminal system based only on revenge is flawed.
posted by nkyad at 7:46 AM on March 23, 2005
Cool, he escaped and only seems to have committed one other crime in the intervening 20 years. Looks like he was rehabilitated :-). I'm not saying they shouldn't throw him back in the can, just that it's nice to hear that someone's being 'good' without the taxpayer burden of incarceration (merely the taxpayer burden of a 20 year manhunt).
As for Dukakis, it sounds like he screwed up, but a lot of people seem to assume that articulate individuals must be innocent. Look for the next mistake to involve Mumia.
On preview... what nkyad said.
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:53 AM on March 23, 2005
As for Dukakis, it sounds like he screwed up, but a lot of people seem to assume that articulate individuals must be innocent. Look for the next mistake to involve Mumia.
On preview... what nkyad said.
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:53 AM on March 23, 2005
True jonmc... then again one of Abbott's main backers was Norman Mailer, who isn't exactly the image of stability himself... didn't he end up stabbing his wife/gf at a party which took place at his apartment and before all his guests?
posted by clevershark at 7:55 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by clevershark at 7:55 AM on March 23, 2005
As for Dukakis, it sounds like he screwed up, but a lot of people seem to assume that articulate individuals must be innocent.
Cogent observation, Brother Caine. People seem to think that only slavering inarticulate brutes are capable of violent criminality. Although most psychology textbooks say that one of the most consistent traits of sociopaths is a glib, superficial charm.
posted by jonmc at 7:58 AM on March 23, 2005
Cogent observation, Brother Caine. People seem to think that only slavering inarticulate brutes are capable of violent criminality. Although most psychology textbooks say that one of the most consistent traits of sociopaths is a glib, superficial charm.
posted by jonmc at 7:58 AM on March 23, 2005
Cool, he escaped and only seems to have committed one other crime in the intervening 20 years.
Yeah, that's pretty fucking impressive. Only two crimes. How many crimes have you held yourself to, Brother Caine?
/sarcasm
jonmc's right. This just makes liberals look bad. It doesn't matter what he's done since the crime, he needs to be punished for it.
posted by graventy at 8:05 AM on March 23, 2005
Yeah, that's pretty fucking impressive. Only two crimes. How many crimes have you held yourself to, Brother Caine?
/sarcasm
jonmc's right. This just makes liberals look bad. It doesn't matter what he's done since the crime, he needs to be punished for it.
posted by graventy at 8:05 AM on March 23, 2005
As for Dukakis, it sounds like he screwed up
He didn't set the guy free - he just commuted one of two life sentences. It was a largely symbolic gesture, seeing as how the guy still had to serve life in prison. Sounds like they were just recognizing his good behaviour in prison up to that point.
posted by bashos_frog at 8:16 AM on March 23, 2005
He didn't set the guy free - he just commuted one of two life sentences. It was a largely symbolic gesture, seeing as how the guy still had to serve life in prison. Sounds like they were just recognizing his good behaviour in prison up to that point.
posted by bashos_frog at 8:16 AM on March 23, 2005
I mean, come on, he was a poet who worked for a Church!
Is that all it takes to make up for committing murder? Nobody even reads poetry anymore (I know from experience). I mean, sure, rehabilitation is a nice ideal; let's go easy on kids who get busted with a bag of weed. IMO, murderers (not all killers, necessarily--factors like self-defense, etc., have to be taken into account) should be permanently removed from society, not as a punitive measure, but just because it's impossible to maintain the cohesion of a society in which individuals who engage in such fundamental breaches of social trust are allowed continuing participation. Letting cold-blooded murderers reenter society breeds cynicism and paranoia in a society, and ultimately contributes to the breakdown of healthy communities. Now, as for what to do with the worst of the worst, I dunno... Long ago Great Britain adopted the short-sighted policy of sending its most brutal criminals to Australia to eliminate them from the gene pool. Years later, and what do we end up with? Rupert Murdoch...
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 8:31 AM on March 23, 2005
Is that all it takes to make up for committing murder? Nobody even reads poetry anymore (I know from experience). I mean, sure, rehabilitation is a nice ideal; let's go easy on kids who get busted with a bag of weed. IMO, murderers (not all killers, necessarily--factors like self-defense, etc., have to be taken into account) should be permanently removed from society, not as a punitive measure, but just because it's impossible to maintain the cohesion of a society in which individuals who engage in such fundamental breaches of social trust are allowed continuing participation. Letting cold-blooded murderers reenter society breeds cynicism and paranoia in a society, and ultimately contributes to the breakdown of healthy communities. Now, as for what to do with the worst of the worst, I dunno... Long ago Great Britain adopted the short-sighted policy of sending its most brutal criminals to Australia to eliminate them from the gene pool. Years later, and what do we end up with? Rupert Murdoch...
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 8:31 AM on March 23, 2005
Yeah bashos, but how could they let an opportunity to cry "Soft on crime!! Soft on crime!! Off with his head!!"escape? They would say the same things if Dukakis had commuted one of two death sentences...
posted by nkyad at 8:34 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by nkyad at 8:34 AM on March 23, 2005
Massachusetts in the 80's had a terrible prison space crisis-- New England has always had a very low violent crime rate, so our prisons were (are) old, small and few. Then the 80's push for drug arrests made our priosns burst at the seams.
That, combined with The Duke's strong opinion that incarceration is more for rehabilitation than punishment, led to a lot of reduced sentences and furlough programs. Know what? Our murder rate is still below half the national average.
And I'll remind all of you who are derailing that he was still in custody and may have helped overpower and kill a prison guard when he escaped. It's not like Dukakis freed him and now we want him back because we changed our minds. He escaped from prison.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:52 AM on March 23, 2005
That, combined with The Duke's strong opinion that incarceration is more for rehabilitation than punishment, led to a lot of reduced sentences and furlough programs. Know what? Our murder rate is still below half the national average.
And I'll remind all of you who are derailing that he was still in custody and may have helped overpower and kill a prison guard when he escaped. It's not like Dukakis freed him and now we want him back because we changed our minds. He escaped from prison.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:52 AM on March 23, 2005
Miyamoto Musashi - 'He wrote that he engaged in sixty duels without suffering defeat once, and was noted in this regard for his skill at handling two swords at once. He was also remembered for employing a simple bamboo sword, which he used to deadly effect. '
Whether or not his own acount is accurate, one can assume that he killed a few people. He then went on to become a painter, poet and author of the Go Rin No Sho, which is an interesting read.
It takes all sorts.
posted by asok at 8:52 AM on March 23, 2005
Whether or not his own acount is accurate, one can assume that he killed a few people. He then went on to become a painter, poet and author of the Go Rin No Sho, which is an interesting read.
It takes all sorts.
posted by asok at 8:52 AM on March 23, 2005
I mean, what basos_frog said.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:53 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:53 AM on March 23, 2005
I bet that if he had been a romantic poet, he would have never been apprehended. But since he was an anti-war poet, I bet you we have the FBI and everyone else working on political busts these days. If I were a democratic office holder, I wouldn't even skip brushing my teeth, much less making any kind of social gaffe.
They Poet is a killer, and justice must be served, but this is still my bet, as to why he was apprehended. If you want to do anti-establishment politics, make sure your parking tickets are paid, and drive a borrowed beater truck to the motel, pay cash.
posted by Oyéah at 8:53 AM on March 23, 2005
They Poet is a killer, and justice must be served, but this is still my bet, as to why he was apprehended. If you want to do anti-establishment politics, make sure your parking tickets are paid, and drive a borrowed beater truck to the motel, pay cash.
posted by Oyéah at 8:53 AM on March 23, 2005
asok, a duel is a hell of a lot different than a murder. Nice strawman.
posted by graventy at 9:00 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by graventy at 9:00 AM on March 23, 2005
I bet that if he had been a romantic poet, he would have never been apprehended. But since he was an anti-war poet
oh for fuck's sake. I hope this is just bait and not a sincerely held opinion. Yeah, the FBI chooses which murderers to go after based on what sort of poetry they write...
It takes all sorts.
eh, we get all sorts, but I don't know if it really takes all sorts. I doubt society would have lost much if this guy never had a chance to become an active member of an open mic community.
The fact that he actively chose to escape from prison tells me he wasn't especially "rehabilitated."
posted by mdn at 9:06 AM on March 23, 2005
oh for fuck's sake. I hope this is just bait and not a sincerely held opinion. Yeah, the FBI chooses which murderers to go after based on what sort of poetry they write...
It takes all sorts.
eh, we get all sorts, but I don't know if it really takes all sorts. I doubt society would have lost much if this guy never had a chance to become an active member of an open mic community.
The fact that he actively chose to escape from prison tells me he wasn't especially "rehabilitated."
posted by mdn at 9:06 AM on March 23, 2005
a duel is a hell of a lot different than a murder.
I'm pretty sure if you killed someone in a duel the district attorney of wherever you live would disagree.
posted by Cyrano at 9:06 AM on March 23, 2005
I'm pretty sure if you killed someone in a duel the district attorney of wherever you live would disagree.
posted by Cyrano at 9:06 AM on March 23, 2005
mdn, rehabilitated or not, what else is there for someone condemned to life in prison to do, short of planning to and trying to escape? I don't think escaping prison says anything about someone's capacity to fit back into society.
posted by nkyad at 9:16 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by nkyad at 9:16 AM on March 23, 2005
mdn, rehabilitated or not, what else is there for someone condemned to life in prison to do, short of planning to and trying to escape?
Most prisoners doing life sentences don't try to escape, because to do so (in a maximmum security situation) would involve the risk of being shot and having to do violence to others, and in this guy's case did involve killing a man. So those are pretty strong indicators of a man's willingness to commit violent acts and to be a danger to society.
I don't know about the FBI's position on poetry, but there's several poets who probably should be locked up on aesthetic grounds.
posted by jonmc at 9:22 AM on March 23, 2005
Most prisoners doing life sentences don't try to escape, because to do so (in a maximmum security situation) would involve the risk of being shot and having to do violence to others, and in this guy's case did involve killing a man. So those are pretty strong indicators of a man's willingness to commit violent acts and to be a danger to society.
I don't know about the FBI's position on poetry, but there's several poets who probably should be locked up on aesthetic grounds.
posted by jonmc at 9:22 AM on March 23, 2005
I'm pretty sure if you killed someone in a duel the district attorney of wherever you live would disagree.
I live in Muromachi era Japan.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:30 AM on March 23, 2005
I live in Muromachi era Japan.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:30 AM on March 23, 2005
jonmc, I think we were talking about his second (clean) escape from a minimum security prison in the 70's, not about the first attempt that led to his second murder (and second life term sentence). When he was arrested for the first time he clearly wasn't rehabilitated.
Anyway, I think most prisoners won't try to escape because jails, specially maximum security ones, are made to prevent it. The opportunities are few and the risks are quite high. Besides, prison life itself is organized in a way that eventually breaks any prisoner's will to do anything more complex than sleep and eat.
posted by nkyad at 9:30 AM on March 23, 2005
Anyway, I think most prisoners won't try to escape because jails, specially maximum security ones, are made to prevent it. The opportunities are few and the risks are quite high. Besides, prison life itself is organized in a way that eventually breaks any prisoner's will to do anything more complex than sleep and eat.
posted by nkyad at 9:30 AM on March 23, 2005
mdn
I guess that depends on exactly what "rehabilitated" means.
The fact that he actively chose to escape from prison might just mean that he felt any other possible future was better than living trapped in cage for (potentially) the rest of his life.
I think I'd probably come to the same conclusion, no matter what my crimes, how remorseful I was, or how I had changed in the interim.
[on preview] He pled guilty to the 2nd degree murder of a prison employee as part of an escape in 1961 (it's worth noting that one article says the other escapee was the one that committed the murder, and another says he was never accused of pulling the trigger on the guard, so it seems he might have been convicted via felony murder). The escape he is now so famous for was a non-violent escape from a minimum security prison where he had a trustee job.
Maybe the intervening 24 years (44, depending on how you count it) are a good indication of his predilection to violence?
posted by Irontom at 9:33 AM on March 23, 2005
I guess that depends on exactly what "rehabilitated" means.
The fact that he actively chose to escape from prison might just mean that he felt any other possible future was better than living trapped in cage for (potentially) the rest of his life.
I think I'd probably come to the same conclusion, no matter what my crimes, how remorseful I was, or how I had changed in the interim.
[on preview] He pled guilty to the 2nd degree murder of a prison employee as part of an escape in 1961 (it's worth noting that one article says the other escapee was the one that committed the murder, and another says he was never accused of pulling the trigger on the guard, so it seems he might have been convicted via felony murder). The escape he is now so famous for was a non-violent escape from a minimum security prison where he had a trustee job.
Maybe the intervening 24 years (44, depending on how you count it) are a good indication of his predilection to violence?
posted by Irontom at 9:33 AM on March 23, 2005
condemned Nykad? What, are you fucking kidding?
Yes, I suspect for an unrepentant murderer, there isn't much else to do but think of ways to escape. Perhaps someone genuinely concerned about what they did would seek to do more than find ways to avoid their due punishment.
posted by j.p. Hung at 9:39 AM on March 23, 2005
Yes, I suspect for an unrepentant murderer, there isn't much else to do but think of ways to escape. Perhaps someone genuinely concerned about what they did would seek to do more than find ways to avoid their due punishment.
posted by j.p. Hung at 9:39 AM on March 23, 2005
cavalier and nkyad have, by far, made the most useful contributions to this discussion.
I think the idea that someone who commits a crime needs to "make up" for that crime, based in punitive justice, is understandable but completely useless. It is impossible to set a standard for "making up" for something. The question is, is it going to happen again? And if there is a risk, how is it going to be mitigated?
For some, mitigating the risk requires incarceration, because nothing short of that will work. But for most, incarceration (especially if followed by release) is the opposite of useful: it actually makes future criminal behavior even more likely to occur, and it mitigates the risk only temporarily. We need to get over this idea of punishment; the way we treat people who have done wrong says a lot about the way our society thinks and functions.
And maybe I sound like a 'liberal' -- but you know what? I don't fucking care, at all. This is what makes sense if you care about everyone and want society to function in terms of maintaining justice, peace and people's ability to get what they need.
Some people in this thread, and this socialized-to-dominate nation, get off on making perfectly clear how they are superior to others, and putting people into cages is a perfect way to draw that dividing line. Note also how that division (incarceration) aligns with other divisions created for the same purpose, like race. It's not a coincidence; this entire conversation contains traces of the deepest diseases of American culture.
posted by Embryo at 9:41 AM on March 23, 2005
I think the idea that someone who commits a crime needs to "make up" for that crime, based in punitive justice, is understandable but completely useless. It is impossible to set a standard for "making up" for something. The question is, is it going to happen again? And if there is a risk, how is it going to be mitigated?
For some, mitigating the risk requires incarceration, because nothing short of that will work. But for most, incarceration (especially if followed by release) is the opposite of useful: it actually makes future criminal behavior even more likely to occur, and it mitigates the risk only temporarily. We need to get over this idea of punishment; the way we treat people who have done wrong says a lot about the way our society thinks and functions.
And maybe I sound like a 'liberal' -- but you know what? I don't fucking care, at all. This is what makes sense if you care about everyone and want society to function in terms of maintaining justice, peace and people's ability to get what they need.
Some people in this thread, and this socialized-to-dominate nation, get off on making perfectly clear how they are superior to others, and putting people into cages is a perfect way to draw that dividing line. Note also how that division (incarceration) aligns with other divisions created for the same purpose, like race. It's not a coincidence; this entire conversation contains traces of the deepest diseases of American culture.
posted by Embryo at 9:41 AM on March 23, 2005
And maybe I sound like a 'liberal'
No, just clueless. Our penal system needs a lot of work, no doubt, but you seem to be painfully naive. A large portion of people, especially criminals, veiw compassion as a weakness to be exploited. No matter what you might think, the majority of criminals are not poor benighted angels for you to rescue.
Some people in this thread, and this socialized-to-dominate nation, get off on making perfectly clear how they are superior to others,....It's not a coincidence; this entire conversation contains traces of the deepest diseases of American culture.
Well said, irony boy.
posted by jonmc at 9:48 AM on March 23, 2005
No, just clueless. Our penal system needs a lot of work, no doubt, but you seem to be painfully naive. A large portion of people, especially criminals, veiw compassion as a weakness to be exploited. No matter what you might think, the majority of criminals are not poor benighted angels for you to rescue.
Some people in this thread, and this socialized-to-dominate nation, get off on making perfectly clear how they are superior to others,....It's not a coincidence; this entire conversation contains traces of the deepest diseases of American culture.
Well said, irony boy.
posted by jonmc at 9:48 AM on March 23, 2005
Funny how you knew exactly who I was talking about, jonmc. Tell me a little about all the criminals whose minds you intimately understand.
posted by Embryo at 9:50 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by Embryo at 9:50 AM on March 23, 2005
embryo, it's not a matter of being superior to others ... we're just safer to be around ... you could perhaps make a case this guy is rehabilitated ... but it would be more convincing if he hadn't chosen to release himself ...
posted by pyramid termite at 9:51 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by pyramid termite at 9:51 AM on March 23, 2005
mdn, rehabilitated or not, what else is there for someone condemned to life in prison to do, short of planning to and trying to escape?
What about serve the sentence you earned? Unless you honestly believe the sentence is radically unfair, in which case you appeal to international courts for the breach of human rights or something.
But if you killed two human beings, I'd say you're grateful you live in an age that recognizes your humanity, and lets you start prison magazines and write poetry and stuff like that. I guess it depends what we mean by "rehabilitated" to begin with.
I don't think escaping prison says anything about someone's capacity to fit back into society.
Escaping prison is still 'taking the law into your own hands' which is generally the root of the problem, so I don't think this guy is good example of a morally upstanding prisoner. I guess it's reasonable to agree with Plato that the vast majority of people are sort of morally indifferent and it has more to do with circumstances than internal character whether they live a good life, so in that sense there are probably plenty of people who'd do the same thing in the same circumstances who are free... but that's "innocent until proven guilty" on another level - we assume people are basically good until they do something to show us otherwise.
As for "why punish, what's the use", isn't there something to be said for what the prisoner gains by 'paying the debt', so to speak? It's symbolic, but symbols are meaningful. If a person really understands what he's done, won't he want to somehow balance out his karma (not being literal, here)?
I don't know, I probably spend too much time reading philosophies of ethics and not enough time dealing with real life hardships etc, but I think there's something to be said for a system that takes these actions seriously, and tries to take the character of its citizens seriously as well. Sometimes it seems we get caught living in a world based on happenstance and random action, and not concerned with reflection and intent, and it seems like reforming judicial practices so that all that matters is the practical outcome is in a sense more dehumanizing for criminals. They become mere viruses that need to be blocked, not individual personalities who make choices.
posted by mdn at 9:52 AM on March 23, 2005
What about serve the sentence you earned? Unless you honestly believe the sentence is radically unfair, in which case you appeal to international courts for the breach of human rights or something.
But if you killed two human beings, I'd say you're grateful you live in an age that recognizes your humanity, and lets you start prison magazines and write poetry and stuff like that. I guess it depends what we mean by "rehabilitated" to begin with.
I don't think escaping prison says anything about someone's capacity to fit back into society.
Escaping prison is still 'taking the law into your own hands' which is generally the root of the problem, so I don't think this guy is good example of a morally upstanding prisoner. I guess it's reasonable to agree with Plato that the vast majority of people are sort of morally indifferent and it has more to do with circumstances than internal character whether they live a good life, so in that sense there are probably plenty of people who'd do the same thing in the same circumstances who are free... but that's "innocent until proven guilty" on another level - we assume people are basically good until they do something to show us otherwise.
As for "why punish, what's the use", isn't there something to be said for what the prisoner gains by 'paying the debt', so to speak? It's symbolic, but symbols are meaningful. If a person really understands what he's done, won't he want to somehow balance out his karma (not being literal, here)?
I don't know, I probably spend too much time reading philosophies of ethics and not enough time dealing with real life hardships etc, but I think there's something to be said for a system that takes these actions seriously, and tries to take the character of its citizens seriously as well. Sometimes it seems we get caught living in a world based on happenstance and random action, and not concerned with reflection and intent, and it seems like reforming judicial practices so that all that matters is the practical outcome is in a sense more dehumanizing for criminals. They become mere viruses that need to be blocked, not individual personalities who make choices.
posted by mdn at 9:52 AM on March 23, 2005
Why is his escape relevant? Do you think the system is going to even ask the question of whether he's rehabilitated? And, no one is saying he was already rehabilitated when he left prison -- that is totally unlikely. [i]He left to go and rehabilitate himself[/i], in a new environment that he could choose and design so as best to get by in a new way.
I know that this seems to be about safety, but that fear of 'criminals' goes hand in hand with fear of anyone else. These are people who the privileged (well-represented here on MeFi, to be sure) are not encouraged to care about or try to understand. We are encouraged to fear them; they are demonized as a matter of both maintaining broader power imbalances and as an issue through which to manipulate the political machine. We need to start seeing through this bullshit. Virtually everything we think we know about prisons is wrong, from who benefits from them to who is bearing the burden.
posted by Embryo at 9:56 AM on March 23, 2005
I know that this seems to be about safety, but that fear of 'criminals' goes hand in hand with fear of anyone else. These are people who the privileged (well-represented here on MeFi, to be sure) are not encouraged to care about or try to understand. We are encouraged to fear them; they are demonized as a matter of both maintaining broader power imbalances and as an issue through which to manipulate the political machine. We need to start seeing through this bullshit. Virtually everything we think we know about prisons is wrong, from who benefits from them to who is bearing the burden.
posted by Embryo at 9:56 AM on March 23, 2005
"Besides, prison life itself is organized in a way that eventually breaks any prisoner's will to do anything more complex than sleep and eat."
You've obviously not been to prison - even to visit someone. Modern facilities offer more amenities than most of us would deem acceptable for 'criminals'. Even in County lock-up, you have reasonable access to phones, reading material, work-out facilities as well as spiritual outlets. Many state prisons allow prisoners free access to their cells (with their own keys mind you) from 10am to lights out. Cable tv is readily available provided someone buys you a tv to view it on. I'm kind of surprised at how many people here misunderstand the reality of todays' correctional facilities.
This guy wasn't in a supermax after all.
I was just going to post this when I read Embryos comment...
The question is, is it going to happen again?
No, the question is, how do we protect society from a scumbag that is killing people - rehab is a secondary consideration. Damnit already. I'm not against rehab at all but again, we have yet another bleeding heart that seems to have no understanding of what "bad people" are all about. Prison for a dopehead? Nah. Prison for a murderer? Absofuckinglutely.
C'mon Embryo, you don't care that you sound like a liberal? Fine, but you should care that you sound like someone completely out of touch with reality. Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime? Why do we continue to compare violent criminals to someone that just, "had a bad day" and did something wrong? It's not the same animal in any way shape or form.
I suggest you go commit a simple felony, battery would do just fine (that is if you can muster up the ill will to do it). Spend a few months in County and get to know real bad guys and then get back to us.
posted by j.p. Hung at 9:59 AM on March 23, 2005
You've obviously not been to prison - even to visit someone. Modern facilities offer more amenities than most of us would deem acceptable for 'criminals'. Even in County lock-up, you have reasonable access to phones, reading material, work-out facilities as well as spiritual outlets. Many state prisons allow prisoners free access to their cells (with their own keys mind you) from 10am to lights out. Cable tv is readily available provided someone buys you a tv to view it on. I'm kind of surprised at how many people here misunderstand the reality of todays' correctional facilities.
This guy wasn't in a supermax after all.
I was just going to post this when I read Embryos comment...
The question is, is it going to happen again?
No, the question is, how do we protect society from a scumbag that is killing people - rehab is a secondary consideration. Damnit already. I'm not against rehab at all but again, we have yet another bleeding heart that seems to have no understanding of what "bad people" are all about. Prison for a dopehead? Nah. Prison for a murderer? Absofuckinglutely.
C'mon Embryo, you don't care that you sound like a liberal? Fine, but you should care that you sound like someone completely out of touch with reality. Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime? Why do we continue to compare violent criminals to someone that just, "had a bad day" and did something wrong? It's not the same animal in any way shape or form.
I suggest you go commit a simple felony, battery would do just fine (that is if you can muster up the ill will to do it). Spend a few months in County and get to know real bad guys and then get back to us.
posted by j.p. Hung at 9:59 AM on March 23, 2005
condemned Nykad? What, are you fucking kidding?
posted by j.p. Hung at 11:39 AM CST on March 23
con·demn
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French condemner, from Latin condemnare, from com- + damnare to condemn -- more at DAMN
1 : to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation
2 a : to pronounce guilty....
posted by Floydd at 9:59 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by j.p. Hung at 11:39 AM CST on March 23
con·demn
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French condemner, from Latin condemnare, from com- + damnare to condemn -- more at DAMN
1 : to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation
2 a : to pronounce guilty....
posted by Floydd at 9:59 AM on March 23, 2005
embryo, we're talking about people who murder here ... there is such a thing as being fearful of people who've given us good cause to be afraid of them
if we were talking about drug dealers or check bouncers or shoplifters, you'd have a point
not being murdered isn't a middle class privilege, it's a right
posted by pyramid termite at 10:01 AM on March 23, 2005
if we were talking about drug dealers or check bouncers or shoplifters, you'd have a point
not being murdered isn't a middle class privilege, it's a right
posted by pyramid termite at 10:01 AM on March 23, 2005
"We are encouraged to fear them; they are demonized as a matter of both maintaining broader power imbalances and as an issue through which to manipulate the political machine." Embryo
Dude...you simply have no idea what a violent felon is like...not a fucking clue.
posted by j.p. Hung at 10:05 AM on March 23, 2005
Dude...you simply have no idea what a violent felon is like...not a fucking clue.
posted by j.p. Hung at 10:05 AM on March 23, 2005
mdn, I think my whole point was that "serve the sentence you earned" when the sentence is a life renders any rehabilitation effort useless. Unless you think the only "ethical" curse of action for the supposedly rehabilitated prisoner is to sit forever repenting from his past crimes.
j.p. Hung, sorry for a bad word choice. English as a second language always leaves traps around (the ongoing and completely off-topic fight for the possession of the word "marriage" comes to mind). I believe "sentenced" would be better. On preview, thanks for setting me back on track, Floydd.
posted by nkyad at 10:07 AM on March 23, 2005
j.p. Hung, sorry for a bad word choice. English as a second language always leaves traps around (the ongoing and completely off-topic fight for the possession of the word "marriage" comes to mind). I believe "sentenced" would be better. On preview, thanks for setting me back on track, Floydd.
posted by nkyad at 10:07 AM on March 23, 2005
Floyyd - I know what the word means. I was referring to how it was being used in relation to the whole of the argument. On seeing the definition though, it is a correct statement to say one is condemned to prison.
posted by j.p. Hung at 10:08 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by j.p. Hung at 10:08 AM on March 23, 2005
First of all, Hung, if you want to convince me that there's any such thing as a "bad person", you're going to fail, and furthermore, you're going to do more to convince me that you are closer than anyone to that definition, so it's really not a useful tack to take in this conversation.
No, the question is, how do we protect society from a scumbag that is killing people - rehab is a secondary consideration.
When I said, The question is, is it going to happen again? it was the exact same thing you just said, except not couched in a sense that I'm better than that person. Rehab is NOT a secondary consideration, it is THE consideration when answering that question. Dealing with criminals in a punitive way is bad for society in a different way than a murderer is bad for society, but it is still very very bad for society, because it causes people to miss the point behind why we should care about the way we exist in community with other people -- just like you're doing right now. This isn't about law or criminality, and someone who breaks the law isn't inherently a terrible person. People go to jail who are innocent or who commit crimes because of circumstances beyond their control or that they have never been empowered to take control of. Life is not as simple as you would like, to be able to draw lines that are so black and white.
And as for mdn's comment, and it seems like reforming judicial practices so that all that matters is the practical outcome is in a sense more dehumanizing for criminals., how is putting everyone behind the same bars (except for rich people, especially white-collar criminals, who have a very different experience in prison than the less privileged) an individualized approach to justice-making? Rehabilitation is as individualized a pursuit as I can concieve of.
Finally, prison is NOT the cakewalk that you, Hung, seem to think everyone is deluded to think it isn't. Just because CNN focuses on the prison experience of rich-ass, lily-white Martha Stewart, doesn't mean that defines what prison is. In fact, that is completely divorced from the reality of most prisons.
posted by Embryo at 10:10 AM on March 23, 2005
No, the question is, how do we protect society from a scumbag that is killing people - rehab is a secondary consideration.
When I said, The question is, is it going to happen again? it was the exact same thing you just said, except not couched in a sense that I'm better than that person. Rehab is NOT a secondary consideration, it is THE consideration when answering that question. Dealing with criminals in a punitive way is bad for society in a different way than a murderer is bad for society, but it is still very very bad for society, because it causes people to miss the point behind why we should care about the way we exist in community with other people -- just like you're doing right now. This isn't about law or criminality, and someone who breaks the law isn't inherently a terrible person. People go to jail who are innocent or who commit crimes because of circumstances beyond their control or that they have never been empowered to take control of. Life is not as simple as you would like, to be able to draw lines that are so black and white.
And as for mdn's comment, and it seems like reforming judicial practices so that all that matters is the practical outcome is in a sense more dehumanizing for criminals., how is putting everyone behind the same bars (except for rich people, especially white-collar criminals, who have a very different experience in prison than the less privileged) an individualized approach to justice-making? Rehabilitation is as individualized a pursuit as I can concieve of.
Finally, prison is NOT the cakewalk that you, Hung, seem to think everyone is deluded to think it isn't. Just because CNN focuses on the prison experience of rich-ass, lily-white Martha Stewart, doesn't mean that defines what prison is. In fact, that is completely divorced from the reality of most prisons.
posted by Embryo at 10:10 AM on March 23, 2005
Dude...you simply have no idea what a violent felon is like...not a fucking clue.
Then enlighten me. What are violent felons like? Since clearly, they are all the same. This one was a poet and apparently a pretty stand-up guy, aside from being a convicted murderer. So, you know, I'm really not convinced that you have any idea what you're talking about, and even if you did have one or two examples for me, I wouldn't be prepared to accept your extrapolation of that experience to cover all violent felons.
I'm not saying they can't or shouldn't be viewed as scary. I am saying that that fear is not a good place to start from when figuring out the best way for society to deal with them. And if you think the things I said, which you quoted, are untrue, or irrelevant, I would beg you to reconsider.
posted by Embryo at 10:15 AM on March 23, 2005
Then enlighten me. What are violent felons like? Since clearly, they are all the same. This one was a poet and apparently a pretty stand-up guy, aside from being a convicted murderer. So, you know, I'm really not convinced that you have any idea what you're talking about, and even if you did have one or two examples for me, I wouldn't be prepared to accept your extrapolation of that experience to cover all violent felons.
I'm not saying they can't or shouldn't be viewed as scary. I am saying that that fear is not a good place to start from when figuring out the best way for society to deal with them. And if you think the things I said, which you quoted, are untrue, or irrelevant, I would beg you to reconsider.
posted by Embryo at 10:15 AM on March 23, 2005
Funny how you knew exactly who I was talking about, jonmc.
Yes, reading comprehension is quite remarkable.
Tell me a little about all the criminals whose minds you intimately understand.
Many of the guys I used to hang around with as a teenager have been in intermittent trouble with the law during their adult wives. I have relatives who have been to prison. I've spent a night in a cell myself. Don't presume to think you know me.
I know that this seems to be about safety, but that fear of 'criminals' goes hand in hand with fear of anyone else. These are people who the privileged (well-represented here on MeFi, to be sure) are not encouraged to care about or try to understand.
This theory breaks down when you realize that most victims of crime are not the 'priviliged,' but usually the poor and disenfranchised. But if you want to believe that people holding up shops and shooting clerks is some kind of covert class warfare, you go right ahead. But quite frankly, you sound like some 19-year old who's just figured out that the world is unfair.
embryo, we're talking about people who murder here ... there is such a thing as being fearful of people who've given us good cause to be afraid of them..if we were talking about drug dealers or check bouncers or shoplifters, you'd have a point...not being murdered isn't a middle class privilege, it's a right
right on the money.
posted by jonmc at 10:19 AM on March 23, 2005
Yes, reading comprehension is quite remarkable.
Tell me a little about all the criminals whose minds you intimately understand.
Many of the guys I used to hang around with as a teenager have been in intermittent trouble with the law during their adult wives. I have relatives who have been to prison. I've spent a night in a cell myself. Don't presume to think you know me.
I know that this seems to be about safety, but that fear of 'criminals' goes hand in hand with fear of anyone else. These are people who the privileged (well-represented here on MeFi, to be sure) are not encouraged to care about or try to understand.
This theory breaks down when you realize that most victims of crime are not the 'priviliged,' but usually the poor and disenfranchised. But if you want to believe that people holding up shops and shooting clerks is some kind of covert class warfare, you go right ahead. But quite frankly, you sound like some 19-year old who's just figured out that the world is unfair.
embryo, we're talking about people who murder here ... there is such a thing as being fearful of people who've given us good cause to be afraid of them..if we were talking about drug dealers or check bouncers or shoplifters, you'd have a point...not being murdered isn't a middle class privilege, it's a right
right on the money.
posted by jonmc at 10:19 AM on March 23, 2005
j.p. Hung, I will probably regret feeding you, but what makes you so knowledable on violent felons? Your violent keyboard temperament aside, of course. :)
posted by cavalier at 10:22 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by cavalier at 10:22 AM on March 23, 2005
Embryo, you're walking on thin ice. I have no problem with your liberalism or whatever, but once you start using words like "cure" in relation to crime, I start seeing images of Soviet psychiatric clinics where many a dissident ended his days.
The initial reasoning behind it was quite sound and went along this lines, roughly: "We are building a perfect society. Perfection, by definition, is good. Anyone against a perfect society either misinformed or mad. Let us then educate or cure them". The ones in need of education ended up in "educational" camps, the "mad" ones as lab rats for a whole host of neurological and drug experiments.
posted by nkyad at 10:22 AM on March 23, 2005
The initial reasoning behind it was quite sound and went along this lines, roughly: "We are building a perfect society. Perfection, by definition, is good. Anyone against a perfect society either misinformed or mad. Let us then educate or cure them". The ones in need of education ended up in "educational" camps, the "mad" ones as lab rats for a whole host of neurological and drug experiments.
posted by nkyad at 10:22 AM on March 23, 2005
Wow. Preview spellcheck missed "knowl·edge·a·ble", mea culpa. There goes my hip snark factor.
posted by cavalier at 10:23 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by cavalier at 10:23 AM on March 23, 2005
Cavalier, I'll make it easy on you...I know some. :)
posted by j.p. Hung at 10:27 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by j.p. Hung at 10:27 AM on March 23, 2005
mdn, I think my whole point was that "serve the sentence you earned" when the sentence is a life renders any rehabilitation effort useless. Unless you think the only "ethical" curse of action for the supposedly rehabilitated prisoner is to sit forever repenting from his past crimes.
If his past crimes include bloody murder twice, is that really unreasonable? There's such a focus on 'starting fresh', 'getting over' the past, 'moving on', that I think we forget that a core identity and continuity of self is important as well. You can't just 'get over' the past. You can work through it and move on with your life, but if your past includes murder, I think you should be 'working through' that for a good long time.
how is putting everyone behind the same bars (except for rich people, especially white-collar criminals, who have a very different experience in prison than the less privileged) an individualized approach to justice-making?
I didn't say it was individualized, I said it recognized the essential humanity of the offender by considering him not an abstract mass of fucked up DNA, but an individual who made certain choices and is now forced to face them. The former approach may ultimately be closer to the truth (I don't know), but it seems to create a larger gap between the criminal and the citizen in a sense.
To a certain degree, it reminds me of the "everybody wins" approach to little league, etc - that in order not to have to do anything which might hurt anyone, we kind of take the meaning out of the whole scheme.
I remember that my college gave me my actual diploma (not a proxy) before I'd actually handed in my senior thesis, and it really annoyed me. I believe I would feel the same way if I committed a crime and was let off easy. Fair is fair, whether it's to your benefit or not.
posted by mdn at 10:27 AM on March 23, 2005
If his past crimes include bloody murder twice, is that really unreasonable? There's such a focus on 'starting fresh', 'getting over' the past, 'moving on', that I think we forget that a core identity and continuity of self is important as well. You can't just 'get over' the past. You can work through it and move on with your life, but if your past includes murder, I think you should be 'working through' that for a good long time.
how is putting everyone behind the same bars (except for rich people, especially white-collar criminals, who have a very different experience in prison than the less privileged) an individualized approach to justice-making?
I didn't say it was individualized, I said it recognized the essential humanity of the offender by considering him not an abstract mass of fucked up DNA, but an individual who made certain choices and is now forced to face them. The former approach may ultimately be closer to the truth (I don't know), but it seems to create a larger gap between the criminal and the citizen in a sense.
To a certain degree, it reminds me of the "everybody wins" approach to little league, etc - that in order not to have to do anything which might hurt anyone, we kind of take the meaning out of the whole scheme.
I remember that my college gave me my actual diploma (not a proxy) before I'd actually handed in my senior thesis, and it really annoyed me. I believe I would feel the same way if I committed a crime and was let off easy. Fair is fair, whether it's to your benefit or not.
posted by mdn at 10:27 AM on March 23, 2005
if you want to convince me that there's any such thing as a "bad person", you're going to fail
Embryo: You've made it perfectly clear you already do believe there's such a thing as a "bad person"--it's these "privileged people" you assume anyone with a sense of personal moral responsibility must be.
These are people who the privileged (well-represented here on MeFi, to be sure)
This is such an arrogant and fundamentally dishonest statement, it's sickening. My parent's were white-trash drug-dependent assholes who abandoned me to my grandparents because they couldn't handle the responsibility of raising the child they brought into the world. My grandparents were forced to raise themselves from the age of twelve on because their parents were abusive alcoholics (my grandfather began life as a sharecropper and was socially-ostracized on account of his mixed Native American racial heritage), and they worked their asses off in the world to become successful business owners. Ultimately, everything they had worked for their entire lives for stolen from them by some crooked business partners and a corrupt small town judge. Still, they never once abandoned their beliefs in the value of hard work, honesty, and integrity.
Are these the kinds of privileged people you're talking about? People privileged to have a sense of personal responsibility at all? You know what, embryo, I don't usually get personal, but fuck you, with your brand of perverted lowest-common-denominator elitism. You think just like my fucking worthless piece of shit dad does. More and more people I've met over the last few years seem to think that anyone who even holds people to account for a fraction of personal moral responsibility must be "putting on airs" or must be de facto hypocrites. You know what? Most of those people come from middle class families and grew up huffing gasoline in the suburbs.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 10:34 AM on March 23, 2005
Embryo: You've made it perfectly clear you already do believe there's such a thing as a "bad person"--it's these "privileged people" you assume anyone with a sense of personal moral responsibility must be.
These are people who the privileged (well-represented here on MeFi, to be sure)
This is such an arrogant and fundamentally dishonest statement, it's sickening. My parent's were white-trash drug-dependent assholes who abandoned me to my grandparents because they couldn't handle the responsibility of raising the child they brought into the world. My grandparents were forced to raise themselves from the age of twelve on because their parents were abusive alcoholics (my grandfather began life as a sharecropper and was socially-ostracized on account of his mixed Native American racial heritage), and they worked their asses off in the world to become successful business owners. Ultimately, everything they had worked for their entire lives for stolen from them by some crooked business partners and a corrupt small town judge. Still, they never once abandoned their beliefs in the value of hard work, honesty, and integrity.
Are these the kinds of privileged people you're talking about? People privileged to have a sense of personal responsibility at all? You know what, embryo, I don't usually get personal, but fuck you, with your brand of perverted lowest-common-denominator elitism. You think just like my fucking worthless piece of shit dad does. More and more people I've met over the last few years seem to think that anyone who even holds people to account for a fraction of personal moral responsibility must be "putting on airs" or must be de facto hypocrites. You know what? Most of those people come from middle class families and grew up huffing gasoline in the suburbs.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 10:34 AM on March 23, 2005
all-seeing eye dog: careful now, embryo's worked very hard at creating a worldveiw in which everything is explained in simple terms. Realizing that the world is more or less chaotic and random might cause his head to asplode.
Most of those people come from middle class families and grew up huffing gasoline in the suburbs.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
*inhales*
posted by jonmc at 10:39 AM on March 23, 2005
Most of those people come from middle class families and grew up huffing gasoline in the suburbs.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
*inhales*
posted by jonmc at 10:39 AM on March 23, 2005
j.p. Hung thanks, that was great. Myself, I know elves. See how this game goes? I just feel you could be more substantial in your arguments but I guess our styles differ. If I had to bottle it -- I try to present facts and conjecture opinion where you seem to like to present emotion and corral opinion. Just because you drop curse words doesn't make your position sound more experienced.
jonmc Embryo is trying to have a discussion while you are trying to belittle and piss on him. Two different objectives. FYI.
help.. i'm being dragged into... snark war... arrr
posted by cavalier at 10:54 AM on March 23, 2005
jonmc Embryo is trying to have a discussion while you are trying to belittle and piss on him. Two different objectives. FYI.
help.. i'm being dragged into... snark war... arrr
posted by cavalier at 10:54 AM on March 23, 2005
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
*inhales*
Agreed--I just think it's funny how many of my friends from those kinds of backgrounds have hang-ups about not being among the ranks of "the privileged" (in reality, they were/are the privileged, but don't want to take responsibility for any personal failures, so they couch their discontent in artificially class-conscious terms to get more sympathy and to rationalize away their own moral failings).
Also, Embryo: Sorry for the temper flare-up; your remark just hit a particularly tender nerve.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 10:54 AM on March 23, 2005
*inhales*
Agreed--I just think it's funny how many of my friends from those kinds of backgrounds have hang-ups about not being among the ranks of "the privileged" (in reality, they were/are the privileged, but don't want to take responsibility for any personal failures, so they couch their discontent in artificially class-conscious terms to get more sympathy and to rationalize away their own moral failings).
Also, Embryo: Sorry for the temper flare-up; your remark just hit a particularly tender nerve.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 10:54 AM on March 23, 2005
jonmc Embryo is trying to have a discussion while you are trying to belittle and piss on him.
Oh please. Read my actual response to his statements in which he admits to specifically baiting me. I engaged all his points. As for using colorful language to do it...well, people who say provocative shit shouldn't be surprised when people get, well, provoked.
posted by jonmc at 10:58 AM on March 23, 2005
Oh please. Read my actual response to his statements in which he admits to specifically baiting me. I engaged all his points. As for using colorful language to do it...well, people who say provocative shit shouldn't be surprised when people get, well, provoked.
posted by jonmc at 10:58 AM on March 23, 2005
He escaped from a "pre-release center"? He already had once sentence commuted? How long would this guy have remained locked up if he'd just stayed put? (Most "poets" I've met haven't seemed very bright; this case doesn't change that impression.)
Middle-class suburbanites huffing gasoline? WHY? In my day we could get real booze and real drugs; I only tried sniffing glue because I read about it in books on Drug Abuse, and then it took Ann Landers to tell me one didn't use Elmer's. The huffers were the kids in my grandma's slummy neighborhood, and even they used "torlo" (the solvent toluene) or silver spray paint; gasoline was for settin' stuff on fire, man!
Anyway, this poet guy committed or was involved in two murders in the early 1960s, and nobody's said he did any since. (I bet his two arrests in the late '80s - early '90s had to do with his "nonviolent antiwar activism".) So how does that differ from, oh, "troops" who blow up cars full of old ladies and torture little boys -- then become model citizens once they get back Stateside? From what I see, "personal-responsibility"/"throw-away-the-key" types are rather selective in what they consider "heinous" and who they call "irredeemable". Now me, I can understand having to shoot somebody during a robbery -- but not bombing a city because Dubya says that makes it Free. (Can you guess which "moral failure" I consider worse -- and why?)
posted by davy at 11:17 AM on March 23, 2005
Middle-class suburbanites huffing gasoline? WHY? In my day we could get real booze and real drugs; I only tried sniffing glue because I read about it in books on Drug Abuse, and then it took Ann Landers to tell me one didn't use Elmer's. The huffers were the kids in my grandma's slummy neighborhood, and even they used "torlo" (the solvent toluene) or silver spray paint; gasoline was for settin' stuff on fire, man!
Anyway, this poet guy committed or was involved in two murders in the early 1960s, and nobody's said he did any since. (I bet his two arrests in the late '80s - early '90s had to do with his "nonviolent antiwar activism".) So how does that differ from, oh, "troops" who blow up cars full of old ladies and torture little boys -- then become model citizens once they get back Stateside? From what I see, "personal-responsibility"/"throw-away-the-key" types are rather selective in what they consider "heinous" and who they call "irredeemable". Now me, I can understand having to shoot somebody during a robbery -- but not bombing a city because Dubya says that makes it Free. (Can you guess which "moral failure" I consider worse -- and why?)
posted by davy at 11:17 AM on March 23, 2005
I'll be brief, I don't want to, er, derail this that much further.
jonmc, you started with this. Where you greet Embryo with
I want to be clear that I'm not saying "Oh jon you big meany wahhhh!" but you have to admit your usual style of engaging comments is to be superior to the person posting. QED, you are belittling him. I appreciate your insight on most of these threads, and certainly am in no position to cast you out, but I felt it was a little stereotypical to squash the dirty free love hippie rather than to engage in discourse over the subject of prison rehabilitation.
game on.. xox :)
posted by cavalier at 11:23 AM on March 23, 2005
jonmc, you started with this. Where you greet Embryo with
No, just clueless. Our penal system needs a lot of work, no doubt, but you seem to be painfully naive.
I want to be clear that I'm not saying "Oh jon you big meany wahhhh!" but you have to admit your usual style of engaging comments is to be superior to the person posting. QED, you are belittling him. I appreciate your insight on most of these threads, and certainly am in no position to cast you out, but I felt it was a little stereotypical to squash the dirty free love hippie rather than to engage in discourse over the subject of prison rehabilitation.
game on.. xox :)
posted by cavalier at 11:23 AM on March 23, 2005
From what I see, "personal-responsibility"/"throw-away-the-key" types are rather selective in what they consider "heinous" and who they call "irredeemable".
Sure we are, davy. Anyone who thinks this guy belongs in prison is Karl Rove-fellating Bush-worshiper who eats Iraqi babies.
Now me, I can understand having to shoot somebody during a robbery
Yes, it's often neccessary to take the life of some clerk or bank teller making eight bucks an hour because one is entitled to take other people's money.
Sweet lord, quit trying to bend reality so it fits your ideology.
posted by jonmc at 11:24 AM on March 23, 2005
Sure we are, davy. Anyone who thinks this guy belongs in prison is Karl Rove-fellating Bush-worshiper who eats Iraqi babies.
Now me, I can understand having to shoot somebody during a robbery
Yes, it's often neccessary to take the life of some clerk or bank teller making eight bucks an hour because one is entitled to take other people's money.
Sweet lord, quit trying to bend reality so it fits your ideology.
posted by jonmc at 11:24 AM on March 23, 2005
this poet guy committed or was involved in two murders in the early 1960s, and nobody's said he did any since.
Well, give the guy a sucker for his restraint!
So how does that differ from, oh, "troops" who blow up cars full of old ladies and torture little boys -- then become model citizens once they get back Stateside?
Some of those "troops" (nice scare quotes) might become model citizens. Some might not. You really don't know either way and that statement is ridiculously irrelevant in any case.
posted by Cyrano at 11:41 AM on March 23, 2005
Well, give the guy a sucker for his restraint!
So how does that differ from, oh, "troops" who blow up cars full of old ladies and torture little boys -- then become model citizens once they get back Stateside?
Some of those "troops" (nice scare quotes) might become model citizens. Some might not. You really don't know either way and that statement is ridiculously irrelevant in any case.
posted by Cyrano at 11:41 AM on March 23, 2005
Now me, I can understand having to shoot somebody during a robbery
you'll have to excuse me if the actual experience of being robbed at gunpoint prohibits me from understanding "having to shoot somebody during a robbery" ... likewise, with my later experience having to see someone who'd been shot on a sidewalk
of course, i didn't ask what party either of these people voted for ... i'm sure it would have made a difference
posted by pyramid termite at 11:56 AM on March 23, 2005
you'll have to excuse me if the actual experience of being robbed at gunpoint prohibits me from understanding "having to shoot somebody during a robbery" ... likewise, with my later experience having to see someone who'd been shot on a sidewalk
of course, i didn't ask what party either of these people voted for ... i'm sure it would have made a difference
posted by pyramid termite at 11:56 AM on March 23, 2005
Cavalier, your not being dragged into a snark war, your creating it.
What substantiation would you like? That I went to prison? That I've suffered from violent crimes; that no less than a half-dozen significant 1%'er clubs populate my area, my neighborhood? Is there some proof beyond murdering someone that you need to require you to come to the conclusion they are, in fact, violent? What facts have you presented that have added to this discussion? "I mean, come on, he was a poet who worked for a Church! That's pretty model of reform IMO." Is this your attempt at fact and/or conjecture? "Shame about the misspent youth"? Nothing emotional about that statement huh? Especially not to the family members of the two dead people.
I won't deny being passionate about this because the FACT is I do know felons, I do know people similar to what is being discussed in this thread. The point I've been trying to make is that they violent criminals can't be treated like some wall street guy that was nailed for insider trading. It's different, like it or not. I don't need to recount things I've seen or experienced to better illustrate the obvious. Or should I for your sake?
Are they all the same? Of course not Embryo. But they do share one important thread that you refuse to accept, their crimes were violent. Having never suffered from, personally seen or engaged in violent crime, you may not have a realistic viewpoint on it (making huge assumptions here). It's the violence that changes the equation and therefore must change your blanket view that all criminals are created equal where rehabilitation is concerned.
Emotional? Yes, I am when it comes to misinformed people that clearly, by their commentary, have no personal experience in this area yet seem to think they hold the answers to such a complicated societal problem.
posted by j.p. Hung at 12:05 PM on March 23, 2005
What substantiation would you like? That I went to prison? That I've suffered from violent crimes; that no less than a half-dozen significant 1%'er clubs populate my area, my neighborhood? Is there some proof beyond murdering someone that you need to require you to come to the conclusion they are, in fact, violent? What facts have you presented that have added to this discussion? "I mean, come on, he was a poet who worked for a Church! That's pretty model of reform IMO." Is this your attempt at fact and/or conjecture? "Shame about the misspent youth"? Nothing emotional about that statement huh? Especially not to the family members of the two dead people.
I won't deny being passionate about this because the FACT is I do know felons, I do know people similar to what is being discussed in this thread. The point I've been trying to make is that they violent criminals can't be treated like some wall street guy that was nailed for insider trading. It's different, like it or not. I don't need to recount things I've seen or experienced to better illustrate the obvious. Or should I for your sake?
Are they all the same? Of course not Embryo. But they do share one important thread that you refuse to accept, their crimes were violent. Having never suffered from, personally seen or engaged in violent crime, you may not have a realistic viewpoint on it (making huge assumptions here). It's the violence that changes the equation and therefore must change your blanket view that all criminals are created equal where rehabilitation is concerned.
Emotional? Yes, I am when it comes to misinformed people that clearly, by their commentary, have no personal experience in this area yet seem to think they hold the answers to such a complicated societal problem.
posted by j.p. Hung at 12:05 PM on March 23, 2005
And no, I don't have an answer to it. Rehabilitation should be tried on everyone - obviously. Assuming it will have some positive effect on them all is just naive.
posted by j.p. Hung at 12:10 PM on March 23, 2005
posted by j.p. Hung at 12:10 PM on March 23, 2005
In order to create answers, we must gather and discuss and share and debate. I merely asked you to substantiate where or how you were experienced with violent felons, and you replied that you "knew some." It was at the very least, vague. I do not need their socials, but I was hoping you could elevate your position by sharing your experience as well as your viewpoint. Now that you've done so, I think we are all happy with the result and can proceed.
And by your and other comments at the head of the thread, there was already a harsh discussion forming, and I disagree with your view that I created it.
posted by cavalier at 12:11 PM on March 23, 2005
And by your and other comments at the head of the thread, there was already a harsh discussion forming, and I disagree with your view that I created it.
posted by cavalier at 12:11 PM on March 23, 2005
jonmc, you almost make sense sometimes, and then sometimes...
If we ever drink together let's talk about music.
And cyrano, a killer is a killer, in uniform or out. An ex-killer is an ex-killer, whether s/he killed while in uniform or not.
Somebody please explain why levelling a whole neighborhood (from out of retaliation range yet) is morally commendable or at least excusable, but a guy who shot one person in a robbery 45 years ago is a vicious criminal? Then tell me why men assigned to Einsatzgruppen deserve punishment 50 years later, but 'Nam (and later) vets are pitiful victims?
And by the way, "troops" is to avoid having to read that "Marines aren't soldiers" and so on -- and to express my disapproval of the whole War Pig thing.
And pyramid termite, I've been robbed too and didn't like it either. It's just that in my moral universe it's better, and more easily understood, to kill one person than 1000 (but better still to kill nobody except perhaps yourself) -- and "just following orders" is still a crappy excuse 50 years after the Nuremberg trials.
And what is conquering another country but a grander scale of robbery? "We have more right to your oil wells than you do, and we have heavier ordinance to prove it."
(On preview, somebody else'll have to answer j.p. Hung, my arm is getting tired.)
posted by davy at 12:12 PM on March 23, 2005
If we ever drink together let's talk about music.
And cyrano, a killer is a killer, in uniform or out. An ex-killer is an ex-killer, whether s/he killed while in uniform or not.
Somebody please explain why levelling a whole neighborhood (from out of retaliation range yet) is morally commendable or at least excusable, but a guy who shot one person in a robbery 45 years ago is a vicious criminal? Then tell me why men assigned to Einsatzgruppen deserve punishment 50 years later, but 'Nam (and later) vets are pitiful victims?
And by the way, "troops" is to avoid having to read that "Marines aren't soldiers" and so on -- and to express my disapproval of the whole War Pig thing.
And pyramid termite, I've been robbed too and didn't like it either. It's just that in my moral universe it's better, and more easily understood, to kill one person than 1000 (but better still to kill nobody except perhaps yourself) -- and "just following orders" is still a crappy excuse 50 years after the Nuremberg trials.
And what is conquering another country but a grander scale of robbery? "We have more right to your oil wells than you do, and we have heavier ordinance to prove it."
(On preview, somebody else'll have to answer j.p. Hung, my arm is getting tired.)
posted by davy at 12:12 PM on March 23, 2005
Somebody please explain why levelling a whole neighborhood (from out of retaliation range yet) is morally commendable or at least excusable, but a guy who shot one person in a robbery 45 years ago is a vicious criminal?
Because one is a guy listening to disembodied voices who tell him to kill and kill again, while the other... wait a minute.
posted by pracowity at 12:19 PM on March 23, 2005
Because one is a guy listening to disembodied voices who tell him to kill and kill again, while the other... wait a minute.
posted by pracowity at 12:19 PM on March 23, 2005
Quickly, another opposition: gas station stickup -- or "S&L scandal".
posted by davy at 12:22 PM on March 23, 2005
posted by davy at 12:22 PM on March 23, 2005
davy, you'll simply have to take that argument to a court that has jurisdiction ... i've spoken out against robbery, murder and the iraq war
just what more do you want?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:23 PM on March 23, 2005
just what more do you want?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:23 PM on March 23, 2005
Quickly, another opposition: gas station stickup -- or "S&L scandal".
Both are crimes. Both are reprehensible. One aggravating factor (in terms of public safety) is that the means to commit a gas station hold-up are much more easily available than the means to bankrupt an s&l. And that will always be true, regardless of laws, it'll always be easier to get a pistol than a job allowing you access to millions of other peoples dollars.
But the main point is that the wrongness of one kind of crime does not negate the wrongness of another. I'd be quite happy having this guy and Ken Lay in adjoining cells.
posted by jonmc at 12:34 PM on March 23, 2005
Both are crimes. Both are reprehensible. One aggravating factor (in terms of public safety) is that the means to commit a gas station hold-up are much more easily available than the means to bankrupt an s&l. And that will always be true, regardless of laws, it'll always be easier to get a pistol than a job allowing you access to millions of other peoples dollars.
But the main point is that the wrongness of one kind of crime does not negate the wrongness of another. I'd be quite happy having this guy and Ken Lay in adjoining cells.
posted by jonmc at 12:34 PM on March 23, 2005
davy, you'll simply have to take that argument to a court that has jurisdiction ... i've spoken out against robbery, murder and the iraq war
just what more do you want?
Intellectual and moral consistency, for one.
posted by davy at 12:38 PM on March 23, 2005
just what more do you want?
Intellectual and moral consistency, for one.
posted by davy at 12:38 PM on March 23, 2005
"Somebody please explain why levelling a whole neighborhood (from out of retaliation range yet) is morally commendable or at least excusable, but a guy who shot one person in a robbery 45 years ago is a vicious criminal? Then tell me why men assigned to Einsatzgruppen deserve punishment 50 years later, but 'Nam (and later) vets are pitiful victims?"
Who said it was? Moral accountability is moral accountability, whether you’re talking about soldiers, presidents, lawyers, or thugs. Soldiers who follow orders are not criminals, though; the leaders who abuse their authority over those soldiers are. It's all well and good to accuse soldiers of wrong-doing (and if they’ve engaged in criminal behavior over and above their explicit orders, they should be punished in a manner appropriate to the crime), but the military doesn't operate in the same way as the civilian world. Soldiers literally do not have the option to refuse an order from a superior on the battlefield (they can not only be court-martialed, but in some cases, even summarily executed on the field of battle for refusing direct orders, if I’m not mistaken). And most soldiers, far from being culled from the ranks of the “privileged” come from poor or working class backgrounds and only joined the military in the first place in order to improve their personal outlook, usually with some recruiter’s misleading assurance that they’ll likely never see actual combat. Comparing the honorable working men and women of the military to ego-maniacal literary dilettantes who commit murder is morally repugnant.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 12:38 PM on March 23, 2005
Who said it was? Moral accountability is moral accountability, whether you’re talking about soldiers, presidents, lawyers, or thugs. Soldiers who follow orders are not criminals, though; the leaders who abuse their authority over those soldiers are. It's all well and good to accuse soldiers of wrong-doing (and if they’ve engaged in criminal behavior over and above their explicit orders, they should be punished in a manner appropriate to the crime), but the military doesn't operate in the same way as the civilian world. Soldiers literally do not have the option to refuse an order from a superior on the battlefield (they can not only be court-martialed, but in some cases, even summarily executed on the field of battle for refusing direct orders, if I’m not mistaken). And most soldiers, far from being culled from the ranks of the “privileged” come from poor or working class backgrounds and only joined the military in the first place in order to improve their personal outlook, usually with some recruiter’s misleading assurance that they’ll likely never see actual combat. Comparing the honorable working men and women of the military to ego-maniacal literary dilettantes who commit murder is morally repugnant.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 12:38 PM on March 23, 2005
Holy crap, this is now an Iraq war thread. The mind reels.
Anyone find out what he got arrested for from 88 to 93?
Not bush, this dude. :(
posted by cavalier at 12:45 PM on March 23, 2005
Anyone find out what he got arrested for from 88 to 93?
Not bush, this dude. :(
posted by cavalier at 12:45 PM on March 23, 2005
Comparing the honorable working men and women of the military to ego-maniacal literary dilettantes who commit murder is morally repugnant.
The reason you think that it's morally repugnant is because of thousands of years of "military honor" tradition. This tradition is completely a cultural construct or norm, which does not invalidate it, but it's not some Law Of The Universe either. Our culture generally says that killing when ordered to is moral, and definitely says that killing when ordered to is legal. I have heard many people in our culture take an opposing stance.
Individual soldiers will have to judge for themselves whether or not they are morally justified in following orders that will result in the deaths of civilians.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:49 PM on March 23, 2005
The reason you think that it's morally repugnant is because of thousands of years of "military honor" tradition. This tradition is completely a cultural construct or norm, which does not invalidate it, but it's not some Law Of The Universe either. Our culture generally says that killing when ordered to is moral, and definitely says that killing when ordered to is legal. I have heard many people in our culture take an opposing stance.
Individual soldiers will have to judge for themselves whether or not they are morally justified in following orders that will result in the deaths of civilians.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:49 PM on March 23, 2005
davy, i think your straw man's just derailed this train ... i'm done
posted by pyramid termite at 1:06 PM on March 23, 2005
posted by pyramid termite at 1:06 PM on March 23, 2005
This theory breaks down when you realize that most victims of crime are not the 'priviliged,' but usually the poor and disenfranchised. But if you want to believe that people holding up shops and shooting clerks is some kind of covert class warfare, you go right ahead. But quite frankly, you sound like some 19-year old who's just figured out that the world is unfair.
Who owns the shops? Who pays the clerks? Who gets mugged? Who gets robbed? Not the poor and disenfranchised. I shouldn't even be trying to engage you, because you rarely, if ever, engage anyone who disagrees with you, or who -- god forbid -- dares to call you out on how you turn these conversations into poison. It only looks like "baiting" to you because you seek opportunities to assert your superiority, as I and others have noted, and anyone who challenges that is therefore inviting you to drop the hammer, rather than actually engaging and challenging your perspective. You didn't engage my points at all, either, you found ways to belittle my right to make them. This is useless, not to mention shitty.
So all your teenage miscreant, future-strugglers-with-the-rule-of-law friends are beyond repentance or rehabilitation? I never claimed to know you, I asked for you to share the wisdom that every post you make implies you hold. Instead you proved the irrelevance of your perspective in regards to how it supports the view you hold.
allseeying-eye, I don't want to call your comments left-field because I clearly did touch on something very important to you. But I also don't think that I said anything like what you just ranted about me saying. All I said was that privileged people in our society are disencouraged to consider the experiences of those who have different experiences. I never said specifically anything about anyone who was posting, and I never said anything about you at all. I did note that people who have privilege are well-represented on MeFi, which is a fact. So, I really don't know what the beef is. I don't think anyone is a bad person, I will state one more time, and although holding privilege is something that makes it easy for people not to give a fuck, it doesn't mean that they will or have to make that choice. I count myself among the privileged in this community. As far as moral responsibility, I think we have a moral responsibility to own our perspectives, and that is the only thing I ever said regarding privilege in this conversation. Our (people's in general) experiences are different for many reasons, and one of the biggest factors that can be similar or different is our relative levels of privilege.
Embryo, you're walking on thin ice. I have no problem with your liberalism or whatever, but once you start using words like "cure" in relation to crime, I start seeing images of Soviet psychiatric clinics where many a dissident ended his days.
nkyad, do me a favor, if you wouldn't mind, and point me to where I said anything like that? There is no "cure" to crime, but there sure are better and worse remedies. And I am nowhere near saying that people who disagree with me should be hospitalized. When I used the word 'disease', I meant in regards to the socialized tendency to divide and dominate, particularly as demonstrated by jonmc, who is causing damage not just to this community but no doubt to the other communities he participates in due to his domineering nature of communication and the way he assumes and throws around power.
posted by Embryo at 1:15 PM on March 23, 2005
Who owns the shops? Who pays the clerks? Who gets mugged? Who gets robbed? Not the poor and disenfranchised. I shouldn't even be trying to engage you, because you rarely, if ever, engage anyone who disagrees with you, or who -- god forbid -- dares to call you out on how you turn these conversations into poison. It only looks like "baiting" to you because you seek opportunities to assert your superiority, as I and others have noted, and anyone who challenges that is therefore inviting you to drop the hammer, rather than actually engaging and challenging your perspective. You didn't engage my points at all, either, you found ways to belittle my right to make them. This is useless, not to mention shitty.
So all your teenage miscreant, future-strugglers-with-the-rule-of-law friends are beyond repentance or rehabilitation? I never claimed to know you, I asked for you to share the wisdom that every post you make implies you hold. Instead you proved the irrelevance of your perspective in regards to how it supports the view you hold.
allseeying-eye, I don't want to call your comments left-field because I clearly did touch on something very important to you. But I also don't think that I said anything like what you just ranted about me saying. All I said was that privileged people in our society are disencouraged to consider the experiences of those who have different experiences. I never said specifically anything about anyone who was posting, and I never said anything about you at all. I did note that people who have privilege are well-represented on MeFi, which is a fact. So, I really don't know what the beef is. I don't think anyone is a bad person, I will state one more time, and although holding privilege is something that makes it easy for people not to give a fuck, it doesn't mean that they will or have to make that choice. I count myself among the privileged in this community. As far as moral responsibility, I think we have a moral responsibility to own our perspectives, and that is the only thing I ever said regarding privilege in this conversation. Our (people's in general) experiences are different for many reasons, and one of the biggest factors that can be similar or different is our relative levels of privilege.
Embryo, you're walking on thin ice. I have no problem with your liberalism or whatever, but once you start using words like "cure" in relation to crime, I start seeing images of Soviet psychiatric clinics where many a dissident ended his days.
nkyad, do me a favor, if you wouldn't mind, and point me to where I said anything like that? There is no "cure" to crime, but there sure are better and worse remedies. And I am nowhere near saying that people who disagree with me should be hospitalized. When I used the word 'disease', I meant in regards to the socialized tendency to divide and dominate, particularly as demonstrated by jonmc, who is causing damage not just to this community but no doubt to the other communities he participates in due to his domineering nature of communication and the way he assumes and throws around power.
posted by Embryo at 1:15 PM on March 23, 2005
you think that it's morally repugnant is because of thousands of years of "military honor" tradition.
Not true. I think it's repugnant because most soldiers, misguided or not, really do believe they are doing something morally commendable and are trying to act honorably, to the extent they have any say whatsoever in their actions. A guy who robs a convenience store has no illusions about the fact that what he's doing is selfish and wrong. Maybe a soldier's more noble intentions have been perverted by the machinations of their political leaders, but the guy who robbed the store never had noble intentions to begin with (I know by some people's perverse logic, that makes the crook seem morally superior, as someone who holds no illusions about their "true natures" as evil or whatever BS makes you feel good about giving yourself the slack to be a prick, but that's a crock, and in practice, way more hypocritical and disgusting than holding yourself firmly, if imperfectly, to a personal moral code).
It annoys the hell out of me how many people I encounter lately who seem to think detecting the slightest whiff of hypocricy in someone's actions shows them to be morally inferior to those who don't bother trying to be decent at all.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:15 PM on March 23, 2005
Not true. I think it's repugnant because most soldiers, misguided or not, really do believe they are doing something morally commendable and are trying to act honorably, to the extent they have any say whatsoever in their actions. A guy who robs a convenience store has no illusions about the fact that what he's doing is selfish and wrong. Maybe a soldier's more noble intentions have been perverted by the machinations of their political leaders, but the guy who robbed the store never had noble intentions to begin with (I know by some people's perverse logic, that makes the crook seem morally superior, as someone who holds no illusions about their "true natures" as evil or whatever BS makes you feel good about giving yourself the slack to be a prick, but that's a crock, and in practice, way more hypocritical and disgusting than holding yourself firmly, if imperfectly, to a personal moral code).
It annoys the hell out of me how many people I encounter lately who seem to think detecting the slightest whiff of hypocricy in someone's actions shows them to be morally inferior to those who don't bother trying to be decent at all.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:15 PM on March 23, 2005
that is, "hypocrisy."
on second thought, forget it. pyramid termite's right.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:17 PM on March 23, 2005
on second thought, forget it. pyramid termite's right.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:17 PM on March 23, 2005
Also, the church that Mr. Jameson here chose to attend during his years of upstandingness and community contribution and participation, it is interesting to note, is one that told him that he was inherently good[see the first bullet point], not one that told him that because he was a violent criminal and therefore deserved to be treated as less than human and inherently bad. I don't think it would be a stretch to suggest that this might have contributed to his ability to self-rehabilitate, or been a contributor to it.
In a prison system that sends all inmates the message that they are inherently bad people who must be removed from society and punished for their inhumanity, can there actually be any rehabilitation at all?
posted by Embryo at 1:21 PM on March 23, 2005
In a prison system that sends all inmates the message that they are inherently bad people who must be removed from society and punished for their inhumanity, can there actually be any rehabilitation at all?
posted by Embryo at 1:21 PM on March 23, 2005
A guy who robs a convenience store has no illusions about the fact that what he's doing is selfish and wrong.
In general I'd like it if we could avoid speaking for other people's experiences, because I think that helps to keep the air free from assumptions. But I want to challenge this one particularly because I think this is a matter of perspective, and of owning one's perspective, like I stated above. What if this guy is robbing a store to feed his family? Should he then be expected to view what he's doing as selfish and wrong?
And I'm not saying this like, "Oh, here's what you're not thinking of." what I'm saying is, "look at all the things you cannot know about each of these people!"
posted by Embryo at 1:24 PM on March 23, 2005
In general I'd like it if we could avoid speaking for other people's experiences, because I think that helps to keep the air free from assumptions. But I want to challenge this one particularly because I think this is a matter of perspective, and of owning one's perspective, like I stated above. What if this guy is robbing a store to feed his family? Should he then be expected to view what he's doing as selfish and wrong?
And I'm not saying this like, "Oh, here's what you're not thinking of." what I'm saying is, "look at all the things you cannot know about each of these people!"
posted by Embryo at 1:24 PM on March 23, 2005
When I used the word 'disease', I meant in regards to the socialized tendency to divide and dominate, particularly as demonstrated by jonmc, who is causing damage not just to this community but no doubt to the other communities he participates in due to his domineering nature of communication and the way he assumes and throws around power.
Omniscience must be a terrible burden, embryo, how do you bear it? You must be running for office or something since you're so eager to make me a symbol of everything that's wrong with the world.
Who owns the shops? Who pays the clerks? Who gets mugged? Who gets robbed? Not the poor and disenfranchised.
Do you have anything to back this up besides your say so? I live in an urban area. I've lived other dicey neighborhoods back when I was eeking out a living as a shopclerk. I hap my car stolen twice, both times recovered, the second time after $3K worth of damage had been done to it. I know plenty of people who've lived in public housing. Just about all of them have been crime victims of one form or another. Still believe it's all some big Robin Hood scenario?
posted by jonmc at 1:25 PM on March 23, 2005
Omniscience must be a terrible burden, embryo, how do you bear it? You must be running for office or something since you're so eager to make me a symbol of everything that's wrong with the world.
Who owns the shops? Who pays the clerks? Who gets mugged? Who gets robbed? Not the poor and disenfranchised.
Do you have anything to back this up besides your say so? I live in an urban area. I've lived other dicey neighborhoods back when I was eeking out a living as a shopclerk. I hap my car stolen twice, both times recovered, the second time after $3K worth of damage had been done to it. I know plenty of people who've lived in public housing. Just about all of them have been crime victims of one form or another. Still believe it's all some big Robin Hood scenario?
posted by jonmc at 1:25 PM on March 23, 2005
The Miyamoto Musashi reference was simply an example of a person who made a valuable contribution to culture, and who was a murderer. The fact that he only killed people in duels adds a debatable aspect to his crimes.
I have had some experience with violent people and I have concluded that society needs to change before they do. We live in a culture where violence is more acceptable than sex, to give just one example.
Embryo, I feel I must comment that there is considerable violence perpetrated against the most disenfranchised members of society, the homeless, immigrants, the new family who just moved in and don't know anybody yet.
However it is clear to me that the some of the most damaging violence to a community is perpetrated by those who are not held to account, be they polititians, police, the local gang or syndicate. Their behaviour engenders a violent society.
posted by asok at 1:27 PM on March 23, 2005
I have had some experience with violent people and I have concluded that society needs to change before they do. We live in a culture where violence is more acceptable than sex, to give just one example.
Embryo, I feel I must comment that there is considerable violence perpetrated against the most disenfranchised members of society, the homeless, immigrants, the new family who just moved in and don't know anybody yet.
However it is clear to me that the some of the most damaging violence to a community is perpetrated by those who are not held to account, be they polititians, police, the local gang or syndicate. Their behaviour engenders a violent society.
posted by asok at 1:27 PM on March 23, 2005
Who gets robbed? Not the poor and disenfranchised.
a 6 to 7 buck an hour clerk at a convenience store or another shop isn't poor? isn't disenfranchised?
my experiences at jobs like that tell me otherwise
ever wonder why poor neighborhoods are high crime areas? ... and who the victims of these crimes are? ... hint ... rich people aren't being brought in by the bus load to get robbed ...
posted by pyramid termite at 1:28 PM on March 23, 2005
a 6 to 7 buck an hour clerk at a convenience store or another shop isn't poor? isn't disenfranchised?
my experiences at jobs like that tell me otherwise
ever wonder why poor neighborhoods are high crime areas? ... and who the victims of these crimes are? ... hint ... rich people aren't being brought in by the bus load to get robbed ...
posted by pyramid termite at 1:28 PM on March 23, 2005
A guy who robs a convenience store has no illusions about the fact that what he's doing is selfish and wrong.
No, he'll usually have some sort of internal rationalization that makes him feel good enough to go through with it. Like, "They don't deserve the money as much as me." I bet most people don't think, "I know it's wrong, but I just don't care."
I think it's repugnant because most soldiers, misguided or not, really do believe they are doing something morally commendable and are trying to act honorably, to the extent they have any say whatsoever in their actions.
Of course most solidiers are good people. But every mass murder has been committed by people just like them. Also, you act as though they really don't have any say over their actions: this is a crock. They may risk courtmartial by defying their superiors, but they (and we) always have the choice.
This isn't to say they are wrong, but it's a choice they have to make for themselves, like I said.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:28 PM on March 23, 2005
No, he'll usually have some sort of internal rationalization that makes him feel good enough to go through with it. Like, "They don't deserve the money as much as me." I bet most people don't think, "I know it's wrong, but I just don't care."
I think it's repugnant because most soldiers, misguided or not, really do believe they are doing something morally commendable and are trying to act honorably, to the extent they have any say whatsoever in their actions.
Of course most solidiers are good people. But every mass murder has been committed by people just like them. Also, you act as though they really don't have any say over their actions: this is a crock. They may risk courtmartial by defying their superiors, but they (and we) always have the choice.
This isn't to say they are wrong, but it's a choice they have to make for themselves, like I said.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:28 PM on March 23, 2005
all-seeing, I believe I am quite with you on two counts.
First, it will be the second time in as many days I feel like reminding people that a 18th century German philosopher have already nailed the moral question to all practical purposes: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law".
From this perspective, a thief is never being moral because you wont find a thief who wills to live in a society where anyone can rob him. A soldier, on the other hand, is in a balanced position. While he is required to kill he is also defending his community.
Second, yes, pyramid termite's right.
posted by nkyad at 1:32 PM on March 23, 2005
First, it will be the second time in as many days I feel like reminding people that a 18th century German philosopher have already nailed the moral question to all practical purposes: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law".
From this perspective, a thief is never being moral because you wont find a thief who wills to live in a society where anyone can rob him. A soldier, on the other hand, is in a balanced position. While he is required to kill he is also defending his community.
Second, yes, pyramid termite's right.
posted by nkyad at 1:32 PM on March 23, 2005
What if this guy is robbing a store to feed his family?
What if a guy joined the military to feed his family?
And with that, I really am walking away from this one...
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:37 PM on March 23, 2005
What if a guy joined the military to feed his family?
And with that, I really am walking away from this one...
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:37 PM on March 23, 2005
Once again, I make an observation and you respond with a vague dismissal of my right to make that observation.
I think you're great at making my point, so I'm not going to respond anymore to that topic unless you have something useful to say. We are all part of what's wrong with the world, and I am not exempting myself from it, these are things we're all encouraged to do. It definitely takes one to know one.
Anyhow, my statement of who gets mugged and robbed was a little glib; I never meant to say that any theft involves a "robin hood situation." The point I was trying to make is that all who need more wealth than they have (need is a key word there) are in that situation partially due to the unequal distribution of wealth in our country, and so even when the poor and disenfranchised steal from each other, it relates to the privileged, by whom all of those things that are stolen are defined and from whom they all originate. The privileged are not removed from that equation, even if they are not the ones getting robbed.
Crime is mostly a result of poverty, I think you know that, don't you? A poor person stealing from a poor person is still a result of poverty.
I shouldn't be letting you cloud the issue by putting words in my mouth and then responding to the new scope of the topic, but there it is.
The original point, nearly unrelated, was that privileged people in our country are not encouraged to consider the disparate circumstances of other people's experiences. We are the ones with the power to judge and enforce laws; we are the ones who decide what those laws are, and we are the ones whose response to violations of the law determines how power brokers like politicians and state attorneys themselves respond. For better or for worse, those things rest in our hands, and that responsibility needs to be acknowledged. People who want the power we hold, in the form of money or votes, will manipulate our fears to distort our impressions of others and forget that judging them against the baseline of our own experiences is fallacious, dangerous, and unfair, and we have to be careful to avoid succumbing to that tendency.
That's the point I was making.
posted by Embryo at 1:39 PM on March 23, 2005
I think you're great at making my point, so I'm not going to respond anymore to that topic unless you have something useful to say. We are all part of what's wrong with the world, and I am not exempting myself from it, these are things we're all encouraged to do. It definitely takes one to know one.
Anyhow, my statement of who gets mugged and robbed was a little glib; I never meant to say that any theft involves a "robin hood situation." The point I was trying to make is that all who need more wealth than they have (need is a key word there) are in that situation partially due to the unequal distribution of wealth in our country, and so even when the poor and disenfranchised steal from each other, it relates to the privileged, by whom all of those things that are stolen are defined and from whom they all originate. The privileged are not removed from that equation, even if they are not the ones getting robbed.
Crime is mostly a result of poverty, I think you know that, don't you? A poor person stealing from a poor person is still a result of poverty.
I shouldn't be letting you cloud the issue by putting words in my mouth and then responding to the new scope of the topic, but there it is.
The original point, nearly unrelated, was that privileged people in our country are not encouraged to consider the disparate circumstances of other people's experiences. We are the ones with the power to judge and enforce laws; we are the ones who decide what those laws are, and we are the ones whose response to violations of the law determines how power brokers like politicians and state attorneys themselves respond. For better or for worse, those things rest in our hands, and that responsibility needs to be acknowledged. People who want the power we hold, in the form of money or votes, will manipulate our fears to distort our impressions of others and forget that judging them against the baseline of our own experiences is fallacious, dangerous, and unfair, and we have to be careful to avoid succumbing to that tendency.
That's the point I was making.
posted by Embryo at 1:39 PM on March 23, 2005
What if a guy joined the military to feed his family?
hahah, I'm with you on this one, but you're proving my point.
posted by Embryo at 1:40 PM on March 23, 2005
hahah, I'm with you on this one, but you're proving my point.
posted by Embryo at 1:40 PM on March 23, 2005
a 6 to 7 buck an hour clerk at a convenience store or another shop isn't poor? isn't disenfranchised?
of course he is. he is also not the person who is getting robbed.
posted by Embryo at 1:42 PM on March 23, 2005
of course he is. he is also not the person who is getting robbed.
posted by Embryo at 1:42 PM on March 23, 2005
Crime is mostly a result of poverty, I think you know that, don't you? A poor person stealing from a poor person is still a result of poverty.
All right I lied. I'm back.
Embryo: What about white collar crimes committed by multi-billionaires? What about crimes committed by politicians and lawyers? How does poverty motivate the privileged to commit crimes? How were Ted Bundy's crimes poverty related? I disagree with your position that all crime is a result of class inequality. It would be nice if such complex problems came with simple one-size fits all theoretical solutions, but in the real world, they don't. Some people commit violent crimes just because they're temperamentally inclined towards violence/schadenfreude or because they have an inflated sense of entitlement. How can you dispute that?
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:49 PM on March 23, 2005
All right I lied. I'm back.
Embryo: What about white collar crimes committed by multi-billionaires? What about crimes committed by politicians and lawyers? How does poverty motivate the privileged to commit crimes? How were Ted Bundy's crimes poverty related? I disagree with your position that all crime is a result of class inequality. It would be nice if such complex problems came with simple one-size fits all theoretical solutions, but in the real world, they don't. Some people commit violent crimes just because they're temperamentally inclined towards violence/schadenfreude or because they have an inflated sense of entitlement. How can you dispute that?
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:49 PM on March 23, 2005
of course he is. he is also not the person who is getting robbed.
Yeah (I guess the robber's really sticking it to Exxon or whatever in your mind), but the clerk's the guy who stands to get shot over the course of the robbery. Pull some kind of justification out of your hat for that.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:51 PM on March 23, 2005
Yeah (I guess the robber's really sticking it to Exxon or whatever in your mind), but the clerk's the guy who stands to get shot over the course of the robbery. Pull some kind of justification out of your hat for that.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:51 PM on March 23, 2005
Crime is mostly a result of poverty, I think you know that, don't you? A poor person stealing from a poor person is still a result of poverty.
To a degree. But using poverty to excuse criminal behavior is something of an insult to the majority of poor people who are not criminals.
And that only covers a certain spectrum of criminal behavior: what about domestic violence, sex crimes, crimes of stupidity like bar brawls and general pissing contest violence. Not to mention crimes motivated by plain old greed and sloth. Was John Gotti motivated by poverty? Ken Lay? Charles Keating? Even in this case there dosen't seem to be any indication that the perpetrator came from poverty or that desperation was his motive. It's way more complex than just poverty=crime, although it's definitely a factor.
Also, what most of us were reacting so angrily to was the implication that because we think a double murderer should be held accountable for his crimes, that we also believe that all criminals are beyond rehabilitation. I think we also mentioned our own experiences to dispel the idea that we're a bunch of babes in the woods who know not of what we speak.
Nobody questions you're right to make any observation you want, but we do have a right to respond, especially when the observations are about us directly.
of course he is. he is also not the person who is getting robbed.
He's the one with the gun in his face. he's the one who's gonna catch the bullet, if the robber decides he wants no witnesses.
posted by jonmc at 1:53 PM on March 23, 2005
To a degree. But using poverty to excuse criminal behavior is something of an insult to the majority of poor people who are not criminals.
And that only covers a certain spectrum of criminal behavior: what about domestic violence, sex crimes, crimes of stupidity like bar brawls and general pissing contest violence. Not to mention crimes motivated by plain old greed and sloth. Was John Gotti motivated by poverty? Ken Lay? Charles Keating? Even in this case there dosen't seem to be any indication that the perpetrator came from poverty or that desperation was his motive. It's way more complex than just poverty=crime, although it's definitely a factor.
Also, what most of us were reacting so angrily to was the implication that because we think a double murderer should be held accountable for his crimes, that we also believe that all criminals are beyond rehabilitation. I think we also mentioned our own experiences to dispel the idea that we're a bunch of babes in the woods who know not of what we speak.
Nobody questions you're right to make any observation you want, but we do have a right to respond, especially when the observations are about us directly.
of course he is. he is also not the person who is getting robbed.
He's the one with the gun in his face. he's the one who's gonna catch the bullet, if the robber decides he wants no witnesses.
posted by jonmc at 1:53 PM on March 23, 2005
of course he is. he is also not the person who is getting robbed
funny, it sure seemed that way to me at the time ... oh, i suppose it wasn't MY money that came out of that till
guess whose LIFE would have been lost if that .357 police special had gone off
i think i've told you this before ... you're not going to get working people to give a flying fuck about your program until you start addressing THEIR concerns ... and that includes not speaking of matters that you are obviously ignorant of
over and OUT
posted by pyramid termite at 1:56 PM on March 23, 2005
funny, it sure seemed that way to me at the time ... oh, i suppose it wasn't MY money that came out of that till
guess whose LIFE would have been lost if that .357 police special had gone off
i think i've told you this before ... you're not going to get working people to give a flying fuck about your program until you start addressing THEIR concerns ... and that includes not speaking of matters that you are obviously ignorant of
over and OUT
posted by pyramid termite at 1:56 PM on March 23, 2005
Um, if it's demonstrably clear that the guy is no longer likely to murder anybody, what precisely would be the point of locking the guy up and throwing away the key? This is just an enormous waste of money. If you really, really need to see this guy held "accountable" for his crimes then why not recommend the death penalty?
And I wouldn't blame anybody who tries to escape from prison. Many prisons are inhumane. This goes far, far beyond any notion of punishment or rehabilitation.
posted by nixerman at 2:01 PM on March 23, 2005
And I wouldn't blame anybody who tries to escape from prison. Many prisons are inhumane. This goes far, far beyond any notion of punishment or rehabilitation.
posted by nixerman at 2:01 PM on March 23, 2005
I disagree with your position that all crime is a result of class inequality. It would be nice if such complex problems came with simple one-size fits all theoretical solutions, but in the real world, they don't.
Well, that's cool, because I never said that: Crime is mostly a result of poverty, I think you know that, don't you?
But using poverty to excuse criminal behavior is something of an insult to the majority of poor people who are not criminals.
I'm not excusing anything, merely seeking to better understand it, especially in terms of steps to take towards remedying the dual problems both of preventing future such actions and dealing with the perpetrator of the act.
Pyramid Termite, I've worked third shift behind a convenience store counter before, and while I was never robbed, I thought about it many times and each time considered the fact that the money in the till wasn't mine to be a very comforting thing.
He's the one with the gun in his face. he's the one who's gonna catch the bullet, if the robber decides he wants no witnesses.
Undisputable, but still has nothing to do with the conversation about the root of crime, or the basic fact that power and wealth is going from the rich to the poor in a process that is better described as diffusion than as 'robin hood' syndrome, or whatever face you want to put on it. It's a diffusion of unbalanced power.
And this wasn't even where I brought this conversation.
Nixerman, the death penalty is more expensive to administer than life in prison.
posted by Embryo at 2:12 PM on March 23, 2005
Well, that's cool, because I never said that: Crime is mostly a result of poverty, I think you know that, don't you?
But using poverty to excuse criminal behavior is something of an insult to the majority of poor people who are not criminals.
I'm not excusing anything, merely seeking to better understand it, especially in terms of steps to take towards remedying the dual problems both of preventing future such actions and dealing with the perpetrator of the act.
Pyramid Termite, I've worked third shift behind a convenience store counter before, and while I was never robbed, I thought about it many times and each time considered the fact that the money in the till wasn't mine to be a very comforting thing.
He's the one with the gun in his face. he's the one who's gonna catch the bullet, if the robber decides he wants no witnesses.
Undisputable, but still has nothing to do with the conversation about the root of crime, or the basic fact that power and wealth is going from the rich to the poor in a process that is better described as diffusion than as 'robin hood' syndrome, or whatever face you want to put on it. It's a diffusion of unbalanced power.
And this wasn't even where I brought this conversation.
Nixerman, the death penalty is more expensive to administer than life in prison.
posted by Embryo at 2:12 PM on March 23, 2005
if it's demonstrably clear that the guy is no longer likely to murder anybody
That's the thing: When is it ever demonstrably clear that someone who's murdered before is no longer likely to murder again? And why should they get the benefit of the doubt when other lives are potentially at stake? I say, innocent until proven guilty, but once you're proven guilty, the burden of proof is on you.
Interesting how you put the word "accountable" in quotes, as if you don't have a clear understanding of what it means (or question it's utility all together). Accountability is one of the most basic concepts a society needs to be cohesive; unfortunately, thanks to the damage done by the "you-deserve-a-break-today" crowd, it seems there are more and more people who prefer to keep those kinds of words shackled up in quotes to keep them at a comfortable distance.
Crime is mostly a result of poverty
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to misrepresent your position, but I still disagree. The root of the problem isn't just poverty, it isn't even just abuse of power (although I think that's closer to the mark). There isn't any one root of the problem. There are all kinds of different conditions and circumstances that couple with individual inclinations to create violent crime. It just can't be simplified as much as you think, IMO.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:25 PM on March 23, 2005
That's the thing: When is it ever demonstrably clear that someone who's murdered before is no longer likely to murder again? And why should they get the benefit of the doubt when other lives are potentially at stake? I say, innocent until proven guilty, but once you're proven guilty, the burden of proof is on you.
Interesting how you put the word "accountable" in quotes, as if you don't have a clear understanding of what it means (or question it's utility all together). Accountability is one of the most basic concepts a society needs to be cohesive; unfortunately, thanks to the damage done by the "you-deserve-a-break-today" crowd, it seems there are more and more people who prefer to keep those kinds of words shackled up in quotes to keep them at a comfortable distance.
Crime is mostly a result of poverty
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to misrepresent your position, but I still disagree. The root of the problem isn't just poverty, it isn't even just abuse of power (although I think that's closer to the mark). There isn't any one root of the problem. There are all kinds of different conditions and circumstances that couple with individual inclinations to create violent crime. It just can't be simplified as much as you think, IMO.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:25 PM on March 23, 2005
And I wouldn't blame anybody who tries to escape from prison.
What else is there to do?
In prison, you can:
- guilt-and-regret yourself over whatever your crime was, for as long as you can stand to do so, probably a couple of hours
- try to find people worth spending time with and talking to (dammit, everyone else here is some kind of criminal)
- learn new skills from the other prisoners
- learn from the mistakes of other prisoners
- do correspondence courses which are almost certain to be worthless since no sheeple will ever employ you again
- set up social contacts for doing future crimes, since no sheeple will ever employ you again
- torment the guards
- torment other prisoners
- study case law and write appeals for yourself or others
- sit and read the limited selection of books in the prison library
- write
- watch TV
- exercise
- plot escape.
That's about all your options, really.
Let me pre-empt the pious git reply: "So you shouldn't have done the crime then, should you?" Well, no. But you did. So, once again: now what?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:36 PM on March 23, 2005
What else is there to do?
In prison, you can:
- guilt-and-regret yourself over whatever your crime was, for as long as you can stand to do so, probably a couple of hours
- try to find people worth spending time with and talking to (dammit, everyone else here is some kind of criminal)
- learn new skills from the other prisoners
- learn from the mistakes of other prisoners
- do correspondence courses which are almost certain to be worthless since no sheeple will ever employ you again
- set up social contacts for doing future crimes, since no sheeple will ever employ you again
- torment the guards
- torment other prisoners
- study case law and write appeals for yourself or others
- sit and read the limited selection of books in the prison library
- write
- watch TV
- exercise
- plot escape.
That's about all your options, really.
Let me pre-empt the pious git reply: "So you shouldn't have done the crime then, should you?" Well, no. But you did. So, once again: now what?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:36 PM on March 23, 2005
I just think it's hypocritical for privileged folks to emphatically hold other folks accountable for crime that comes as a result of systems that are unaccountable to those folks who are more likely to be put in a place where crime makes, or seems to make, sense. Accountability doesn't exist from the top of the pyramid to the bottom, so why should those at the top be able to cry 'moral accountability' when it follows that those at the bottom are unaccountable to the systems and rule of law of those that run the system, which is first unaccountable to them?
I think accountability is key, but I think it works against you here, dog.
posted by Embryo at 3:05 PM on March 23, 2005
I think accountability is key, but I think it works against you here, dog.
posted by Embryo at 3:05 PM on March 23, 2005
What it ultimately comes down to is the age old question of whether biology or enviornment determines behaviors. And if I knew the answer to that one, I'd be booking a flight to Stockholm to collect my Nobel. I'd venture that it's a combination of both. An individual has no control have almost no control over the enviornment we find ourselves in, but we do have some control over how we react to it. To decide that the money in a cash register is worth more than a man's life is still a moral failing, no matter how you slice it.
I'm not excusing anything, merely seeking to better understand it, especially in terms of steps to take towards remedying the dual problems both of preventing future such actions and dealing with the perpetrator of the act.
And that's admirable, and believe it or not, most of us seek to do the same thing. BUt we also have to deal with the more immediate problem of dealing with violent felons who are already among us.
Pyramid Termite, I've worked third shift behind a convenience store counter before, and while I was never robbed, I thought about it many times and each time considered the fact that the money in the till wasn't mine to be a very comforting thing.
That makes three of us. And while I didn't care too much about the store's money (it was an independent store owned by a small businessman (who was also an asshole, but that's another story) so robbing it wasn't really sticking it to the man), I did worry if some stick-up guy decided he didn't want a witness or just decided he wanted to shoot somebody for the sheer thrill of it.
Accountability doesn't exist from the top of the pyramid to the bottom, so why should those at the top be able to cry 'moral accountability' when it follows that those at the bottom are unaccountable to the systems and rule of law of those that run the system, which is first unaccountable to them?
I don't really think that any of us here are at the top of the pyramid, but speaking for myself, I firmly belive that both the Ken Lay's and the 7-11 stickup men should have to pay the piper. How that piper is to be paid is an extremely complex issue, to be sure, but wrong is wrong.
posted by jonmc at 3:46 PM on March 23, 2005
I'm not excusing anything, merely seeking to better understand it, especially in terms of steps to take towards remedying the dual problems both of preventing future such actions and dealing with the perpetrator of the act.
And that's admirable, and believe it or not, most of us seek to do the same thing. BUt we also have to deal with the more immediate problem of dealing with violent felons who are already among us.
Pyramid Termite, I've worked third shift behind a convenience store counter before, and while I was never robbed, I thought about it many times and each time considered the fact that the money in the till wasn't mine to be a very comforting thing.
That makes three of us. And while I didn't care too much about the store's money (it was an independent store owned by a small businessman (who was also an asshole, but that's another story) so robbing it wasn't really sticking it to the man), I did worry if some stick-up guy decided he didn't want a witness or just decided he wanted to shoot somebody for the sheer thrill of it.
Accountability doesn't exist from the top of the pyramid to the bottom, so why should those at the top be able to cry 'moral accountability' when it follows that those at the bottom are unaccountable to the systems and rule of law of those that run the system, which is first unaccountable to them?
I don't really think that any of us here are at the top of the pyramid, but speaking for myself, I firmly belive that both the Ken Lay's and the 7-11 stickup men should have to pay the piper. How that piper is to be paid is an extremely complex issue, to be sure, but wrong is wrong.
posted by jonmc at 3:46 PM on March 23, 2005
"Perhaps someone genuinely concerned about what they did would seek to do more than find ways to avoid their due punishment." j.p. Hung
"What about serve the sentence you earned?" - mdn
All I can say about these two comments, is that it is a funny kind of economy that is built on a system which requires a payment that no one receives. Oh, and sorry for removing them from their context.
Incarceration is not about moral balance. It is both how we protect ourselves from those with poor impulse control until they learn wisdom or are slowed down by age (same thing? :-), and also how we isolate criminals from mentoring a younger criminal class. This is a system that requires lengths of sentence proportional to the damage that individuals may be expected to inflict in the future rather than the crimes they've committed. It's a system that is as concerned or more with our property rights than physical rights. Lastly, it is a system that must weigh harder on the unprivileged and underclass. I feel that this is how it should be if you are concerned with social stability more than an idealized sense of fairness.
I do not believe in the abolition of prisons (yet), but lets not kid ourselves that they can benefit the families of the victims, or that their inmates can 'pay their debt to society'. I loathe that phrase. The justly condemned violent felon can do very little to improve society from such a restricted space, and serving their sentences alone does not pay back their moral debt. Atonement of a more substantive nature is required for that, and although it can be begun behind bars, will probably have to be a lifelong endeavor even after release.
That said, if I were ever convicted of a violent felony, I would consider it my moral duty to escape prison (if such could be done without violence) in order to cease burdening society, and start atoning. Hopefully said escape could be accomplished most efficiently through the parole process.
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:49 PM on March 23, 2005
"What about serve the sentence you earned?" - mdn
All I can say about these two comments, is that it is a funny kind of economy that is built on a system which requires a payment that no one receives. Oh, and sorry for removing them from their context.
Incarceration is not about moral balance. It is both how we protect ourselves from those with poor impulse control until they learn wisdom or are slowed down by age (same thing? :-), and also how we isolate criminals from mentoring a younger criminal class. This is a system that requires lengths of sentence proportional to the damage that individuals may be expected to inflict in the future rather than the crimes they've committed. It's a system that is as concerned or more with our property rights than physical rights. Lastly, it is a system that must weigh harder on the unprivileged and underclass. I feel that this is how it should be if you are concerned with social stability more than an idealized sense of fairness.
I do not believe in the abolition of prisons (yet), but lets not kid ourselves that they can benefit the families of the victims, or that their inmates can 'pay their debt to society'. I loathe that phrase. The justly condemned violent felon can do very little to improve society from such a restricted space, and serving their sentences alone does not pay back their moral debt. Atonement of a more substantive nature is required for that, and although it can be begun behind bars, will probably have to be a lifelong endeavor even after release.
That said, if I were ever convicted of a violent felony, I would consider it my moral duty to escape prison (if such could be done without violence) in order to cease burdening society, and start atoning. Hopefully said escape could be accomplished most efficiently through the parole process.
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:49 PM on March 23, 2005
That said, if I were ever convicted of a violent felony, I would consider it my moral duty to escape prison
It's kind of a big leap to assume that idea of "moral duty," rather than "eagerness to avoid punishment," is what motivates a prison escapee. And part of being a stand-up guy is accepting the consequences of your actions.
Note: I do not believe that violent rape, beatings or torture constitute reasonable consequences to criminal actions. Just to be clear. But giving up your freedom for an extended period, perhaps even your whole life in the most egregious cases? Yes.
posted by jonmc at 4:01 PM on March 23, 2005
It's kind of a big leap to assume that idea of "moral duty," rather than "eagerness to avoid punishment," is what motivates a prison escapee. And part of being a stand-up guy is accepting the consequences of your actions.
Note: I do not believe that violent rape, beatings or torture constitute reasonable consequences to criminal actions. Just to be clear. But giving up your freedom for an extended period, perhaps even your whole life in the most egregious cases? Yes.
posted by jonmc at 4:01 PM on March 23, 2005
Jonmc, I didn't notice BrotherCaine ever assuming any such thing, he was speaking for himself.
But if you want to look at the case at hand, he clearly was looking for a new way to live, one that may have been somewhat unfamiliar to him (seeing that his record was by no means perfect), but one that did involve many things that could be considered of benefit to society.
posted by Embryo at 5:05 PM on March 23, 2005
But if you want to look at the case at hand, he clearly was looking for a new way to live, one that may have been somewhat unfamiliar to him (seeing that his record was by no means perfect), but one that did involve many things that could be considered of benefit to society.
posted by Embryo at 5:05 PM on March 23, 2005
Wow, this is the craziest thread ever. Ever. I don't know why, but this thread needs to be taken to MetaTalk, just so all can see it.
posted by Sangermaine at 5:42 PM on March 23, 2005
posted by Sangermaine at 5:42 PM on March 23, 2005
(seeing that his record was by no means perfect)
Understatement of the century. Two people are dead because of this guy. And they never get any parole from that. And I imagine that those two people were rather attached to being alive.
That may sound like stale "tough on crime," rhetoric but it's a truth I can't help coming back to.
posted by jonmc at 5:43 PM on March 23, 2005
Understatement of the century. Two people are dead because of this guy. And they never get any parole from that. And I imagine that those two people were rather attached to being alive.
That may sound like stale "tough on crime," rhetoric but it's a truth I can't help coming back to.
posted by jonmc at 5:43 PM on March 23, 2005
Or to put it another way, most of us can't help but sympathize more with this guys victims than with him.
posted by jonmc at 5:48 PM on March 23, 2005
posted by jonmc at 5:48 PM on March 23, 2005
Several people in this thread have commented that it is perhaps more moral to escape prison and benefit society as a fugitive than it is to languish in jail, to the point of calling escape a moral imperative. However, once one has attained the moniker criminal one has been judged an unfit moral agent by society. Their judgment on moral matters cannot be said to be trusted. If there were a system of rehabilitation then over time they could perhaps demonstrate their comprehension of mores and be deemed fit to reenter society. Thus in order to be said to be a capable moral agent a criminal must have actually completed his sentence for to do otherwise would itself be further evidence of his unfitness. Furthermore, the actual benefit to society of one free person living a mundane life is negligible, but a criminal behind bars is invaluable.
A moral system, be it relative or universal, requires the agreement and upholding of all citizens. If it is universal all are obligated to adhere to it by its very existence, and if it is relative all are obligated to adhere to it to maintain its existence. Every moral act can be considered a brink in the edifice of morality, and by challenging a society's morals a criminal takes on the important role of being the embodiment of a particular action that has been condemned. Thus it is by imprisoning people that society defines its morals, not through its law. Take for instance decriminalization, a decriminalized action is morally neutral, though technically illegal. But if a action is considered worthy of imprisonment it can be said to be immoral. The criminal is the personification of a negative societal action and it is by incarceration of such people that we can effectively define our morality. The sentence of a criminal is the moral weight of the action. It is actually an amazingly subtle judicial system that can assign such varying weights to prohibited actions through a mere number. To merely condemn an action societally without some measure of punitive recompense is to create an inconsistent morality. A criminal deprives both society and his victim of something of some measure of value; the victim of some right of property, and society of its moral stability. Society must then maintain this moral stability by extracting something of equal value from its flouter. Justice been almost universally symbolized with a balance and for good reason: justice is an eye for an eye. To simply rehabilitate criminals, as free persons, without some punitive measure, is to leave a permanent imbalance in the criminals favor. As a free person in the capitalist society a person undergoing rehabilitation would still be enjoying the fruits of his labor while ostensibly contributing to society. Since he enjoys the fruits of his labor the imbalance is never rectified. A criminal who was not allowed to enjoy his labor and was an indentured servant of the state could make up for his imbalance as could a prisoner, who serves as a definition of immorality, and thus benefits society. The prison system is the lexicon of society's morality.
To presume that a citizen will refrain from an action simply because it has been deemed taboo by society with no corresponding retaliatory consequence is to have only half of morality. Morality is composed of virtues and vices. To assume that one can devalue one without effecting the other is foolish. In the absence of societal retaliation for the practice of vices, simply abstaining from them becomes a virtue, for the refrain from a harmful action is no virtue, but to avoid a profitable vice, in such a climate, is selflessness and virtue. Few men can be expected to maintain such high standards of virtue. For by devaluing vice you inflate virtue to levels which no man can hope to ascertain. Thus a largely rehabilitative system has the paradoxical effect of increasing criminality.
posted by Endymion at 6:06 PM on March 23, 2005
A moral system, be it relative or universal, requires the agreement and upholding of all citizens. If it is universal all are obligated to adhere to it by its very existence, and if it is relative all are obligated to adhere to it to maintain its existence. Every moral act can be considered a brink in the edifice of morality, and by challenging a society's morals a criminal takes on the important role of being the embodiment of a particular action that has been condemned. Thus it is by imprisoning people that society defines its morals, not through its law. Take for instance decriminalization, a decriminalized action is morally neutral, though technically illegal. But if a action is considered worthy of imprisonment it can be said to be immoral. The criminal is the personification of a negative societal action and it is by incarceration of such people that we can effectively define our morality. The sentence of a criminal is the moral weight of the action. It is actually an amazingly subtle judicial system that can assign such varying weights to prohibited actions through a mere number. To merely condemn an action societally without some measure of punitive recompense is to create an inconsistent morality. A criminal deprives both society and his victim of something of some measure of value; the victim of some right of property, and society of its moral stability. Society must then maintain this moral stability by extracting something of equal value from its flouter. Justice been almost universally symbolized with a balance and for good reason: justice is an eye for an eye. To simply rehabilitate criminals, as free persons, without some punitive measure, is to leave a permanent imbalance in the criminals favor. As a free person in the capitalist society a person undergoing rehabilitation would still be enjoying the fruits of his labor while ostensibly contributing to society. Since he enjoys the fruits of his labor the imbalance is never rectified. A criminal who was not allowed to enjoy his labor and was an indentured servant of the state could make up for his imbalance as could a prisoner, who serves as a definition of immorality, and thus benefits society. The prison system is the lexicon of society's morality.
To presume that a citizen will refrain from an action simply because it has been deemed taboo by society with no corresponding retaliatory consequence is to have only half of morality. Morality is composed of virtues and vices. To assume that one can devalue one without effecting the other is foolish. In the absence of societal retaliation for the practice of vices, simply abstaining from them becomes a virtue, for the refrain from a harmful action is no virtue, but to avoid a profitable vice, in such a climate, is selflessness and virtue. Few men can be expected to maintain such high standards of virtue. For by devaluing vice you inflate virtue to levels which no man can hope to ascertain. Thus a largely rehabilitative system has the paradoxical effect of increasing criminality.
posted by Endymion at 6:06 PM on March 23, 2005
Understatement of the century.
Argh, Jon, you have to try and understand why this is a little bit irritating, because it feels like you don't actually even read what I write before you respond -- sort of like someone who doesn't listen to you before he reacts in face-to-face interaction. I was clearly talking about his record AFTER escaping jail. Not that your point is less valid, but it sure is less relevant to the direction I was trying to take the conversation in. I think you should think about what your constant redirecting of this conversation has amounted to, and what kind of control you've exerted over what the conversation ended up becoming. I am asking myself the same question, actually. I need to take up less space here when I participate. But I'm asking you to relate the way you've been conversing to the way you assume and wield power, if you would be so kind, and just sum up what that might mean for the rest of us who want to participate in these discussions.
posted by Embryo at 6:15 PM on March 23, 2005
Argh, Jon, you have to try and understand why this is a little bit irritating, because it feels like you don't actually even read what I write before you respond -- sort of like someone who doesn't listen to you before he reacts in face-to-face interaction. I was clearly talking about his record AFTER escaping jail. Not that your point is less valid, but it sure is less relevant to the direction I was trying to take the conversation in. I think you should think about what your constant redirecting of this conversation has amounted to, and what kind of control you've exerted over what the conversation ended up becoming. I am asking myself the same question, actually. I need to take up less space here when I participate. But I'm asking you to relate the way you've been conversing to the way you assume and wield power, if you would be so kind, and just sum up what that might mean for the rest of us who want to participate in these discussions.
posted by Embryo at 6:15 PM on March 23, 2005
(I mean "sum up" as in, in your head, rather than in this space.)
posted by Embryo at 6:15 PM on March 23, 2005
posted by Embryo at 6:15 PM on March 23, 2005
Embryo, believe it or not, I appreciate the point you're trying to make. But I also believe that the decision that he was rehabilitated and ready to re-enter society was not his to make. But again that's just my opinion.
But I'm asking you to relate the way you've been conversing to the way you assume and wield power, if you would be so kind, and just sum up what that might mean for the rest of us who want to participate in these discussions.
Power?
I'm an office clerk, making less than $30K a year, who's never held a position of authority in his life. And here I'm even less than that. I'm just a collection of pixels on a screen like everyone else. So, your statements about me "assuming power," don't make much sense. I only have the power people allow me.
but it sure is less relevant to the direction I was trying to take the conversation in.
So, now we're dueling over who has the "power," (an illusory concept in this context) to direct the coversation? Listen, dude, I respect you, you can hold your own in an argument without wussing out, but this should be less about our personal styles than about the actual issues at hand.
posted by jonmc at 6:23 PM on March 23, 2005
But I'm asking you to relate the way you've been conversing to the way you assume and wield power, if you would be so kind, and just sum up what that might mean for the rest of us who want to participate in these discussions.
Power?
I'm an office clerk, making less than $30K a year, who's never held a position of authority in his life. And here I'm even less than that. I'm just a collection of pixels on a screen like everyone else. So, your statements about me "assuming power," don't make much sense. I only have the power people allow me.
but it sure is less relevant to the direction I was trying to take the conversation in.
So, now we're dueling over who has the "power," (an illusory concept in this context) to direct the coversation? Listen, dude, I respect you, you can hold your own in an argument without wussing out, but this should be less about our personal styles than about the actual issues at hand.
posted by jonmc at 6:23 PM on March 23, 2005
A moral system, be it relative or universal, requires the agreement and upholding of all citizens.
Um, no, that's not true. A moral system has zero dependency on the number of people who adhere to it. Unless, of course, you implicitly assume morality is something dictated by society.
And when the State seeks to deprive you of your freedom and the accompanying rights you have little choice but to go to war with the State. Revolutionaries are no different from criminals in this sense. Both are at war with a State intent on depriving them of their freedom. You could perhaps make an argument that people in a society choose to adhere to some sort of social contract that requires them to obey the dictats of the State but that would be silly. There is no court of last resort for such a social contract, there is no way to escape or negotiate, and it's rarely entered into willingly. So really it's not much of a contract. On another note, you should consider just how revolutionary the concept of 'prison' really is. For the majority of history, you either had to pay immediate restitution for a 'crime' or, if you couldn't or wouldn't or shouldn't do, you were banished or killed. The creation of a new social class, the convicted, which are-almost-but-not-quite citizens, is something quite radical and modern.
(And it's actually quite scary. Try to imagine yourself on the other side of the bars sometime.)
If you accept that nobody, for whatever reason, can ever deprive you of your freedom against your will then, pretty much, it should be clear that escaping from prison is quite a rational and morally justifiable action.
jonmc, I'm happy for you and your truth but how does it help to improve society in any way? Sure, we could imprison people under harsh conditions out of some primitive desire for revenge but this won't actually make people any safer. The dead are dead and gone. They're nothing now. Non-existent. Never coming back. Ever. For all your sympathy, there's nothing you can do to help them. So perhaps focus on the living instead.
posted by nixerman at 6:35 PM on March 23, 2005
Um, no, that's not true. A moral system has zero dependency on the number of people who adhere to it. Unless, of course, you implicitly assume morality is something dictated by society.
And when the State seeks to deprive you of your freedom and the accompanying rights you have little choice but to go to war with the State. Revolutionaries are no different from criminals in this sense. Both are at war with a State intent on depriving them of their freedom. You could perhaps make an argument that people in a society choose to adhere to some sort of social contract that requires them to obey the dictats of the State but that would be silly. There is no court of last resort for such a social contract, there is no way to escape or negotiate, and it's rarely entered into willingly. So really it's not much of a contract. On another note, you should consider just how revolutionary the concept of 'prison' really is. For the majority of history, you either had to pay immediate restitution for a 'crime' or, if you couldn't or wouldn't or shouldn't do, you were banished or killed. The creation of a new social class, the convicted, which are-almost-but-not-quite citizens, is something quite radical and modern.
(And it's actually quite scary. Try to imagine yourself on the other side of the bars sometime.)
If you accept that nobody, for whatever reason, can ever deprive you of your freedom against your will then, pretty much, it should be clear that escaping from prison is quite a rational and morally justifiable action.
jonmc, I'm happy for you and your truth but how does it help to improve society in any way? Sure, we could imprison people under harsh conditions out of some primitive desire for revenge but this won't actually make people any safer. The dead are dead and gone. They're nothing now. Non-existent. Never coming back. Ever. For all your sympathy, there's nothing you can do to help them. So perhaps focus on the living instead.
posted by nixerman at 6:35 PM on March 23, 2005
So perhaps focus on the living instead.
Like the families of those deprived of a loved one through violence?
Like preventing them from being killed by someone who's demonstrated their ability and willingness too use violence?
I understand your point about making an effort to rehabilitate and reform criminals, and I support such efforts. But the suffering of those who did nothing to deserve it has to take precendence in the moral calculus* here.
*thanks to William Vollman.
(And it's actually quite scary. Try to imagine yourself on the other side of the bars sometime.)
I have. That image, along with that nuisance, my conscience has kept me from commiting various crimes over the years.
If you accept that nobody, for whatever reason, can ever deprive you of your freedom against your will then, pretty much, it should be clear that escaping from prison is quite a rational and morally justifiable action.
I don't accept that. Part of the social contract of living in this society is that if you willfully commit violent acts, you will be incarcerated. and pretty much everyone is aware of that.
posted by jonmc at 6:40 PM on March 23, 2005
Like the families of those deprived of a loved one through violence?
Like preventing them from being killed by someone who's demonstrated their ability and willingness too use violence?
I understand your point about making an effort to rehabilitate and reform criminals, and I support such efforts. But the suffering of those who did nothing to deserve it has to take precendence in the moral calculus* here.
*thanks to William Vollman.
(And it's actually quite scary. Try to imagine yourself on the other side of the bars sometime.)
I have. That image, along with that nuisance, my conscience has kept me from commiting various crimes over the years.
If you accept that nobody, for whatever reason, can ever deprive you of your freedom against your will then, pretty much, it should be clear that escaping from prison is quite a rational and morally justifiable action.
I don't accept that. Part of the social contract of living in this society is that if you willfully commit violent acts, you will be incarcerated. and pretty much everyone is aware of that.
posted by jonmc at 6:40 PM on March 23, 2005
BrotherCaine: This is a system that requires lengths of sentence proportional to the damage that individuals may be expected to inflict in the future rather than the crimes they've committed.
I assume by this you mean the current justice system in the US rather than some hypothetical ideal, in which case your reasoning can't be strictly said to be true, because it can't account for accidental crimes like vehicular manslaughter. Such crimes have no recidivism because they are not a matter of will. The relatively long sentences for such accidental crimes also points to a flaw in theories of justice based on intent. The lower the moral weight of the crime, though, the more factors like intent and possible recidivism can sway sentencing. Our justice system is an amalgam of intent and rehabilitation but the foundation is firmly rooted in the moral weight of the crime itself. Society punishes those who harm it.
posted by Endymion at 6:44 PM on March 23, 2005
I assume by this you mean the current justice system in the US rather than some hypothetical ideal, in which case your reasoning can't be strictly said to be true, because it can't account for accidental crimes like vehicular manslaughter. Such crimes have no recidivism because they are not a matter of will. The relatively long sentences for such accidental crimes also points to a flaw in theories of justice based on intent. The lower the moral weight of the crime, though, the more factors like intent and possible recidivism can sway sentencing. Our justice system is an amalgam of intent and rehabilitation but the foundation is firmly rooted in the moral weight of the crime itself. Society punishes those who harm it.
posted by Endymion at 6:44 PM on March 23, 2005
jonmc, why should the suffering of the family play any role in punishment? Does a decrease in their suffering really help society? And in this case, you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate in any meaningful way that this guy was likely to kill again. He's pushing 70, he seems to have been largely clean for the last 20 years, he's an anti-war poet which suggests a strong aversion to violence, and he works in a Church. Believe it or not, people can change over a few decades. So no, I think your moral calculus is just wrong in this case. I assume you want to punish this guy just because he killed two people so many years ago.
And no, I don't buy into the concept of the social contract in any meaningful way. A walk through the poorer of sections of NYC tells me that if there is one, it sure isn't a fair one. People will do almost anything to survive and people will fight against any attempt to deprive them of their freedom. As for your arbitrary 'willfully commit violent acts' criteria you should tell that to the signers of the Constitution or the abolitonists etc etc. It's unfortunately not that simple.
posted by nixerman at 6:53 PM on March 23, 2005
And no, I don't buy into the concept of the social contract in any meaningful way. A walk through the poorer of sections of NYC tells me that if there is one, it sure isn't a fair one. People will do almost anything to survive and people will fight against any attempt to deprive them of their freedom. As for your arbitrary 'willfully commit violent acts' criteria you should tell that to the signers of the Constitution or the abolitonists etc etc. It's unfortunately not that simple.
posted by nixerman at 6:53 PM on March 23, 2005
A walk through the poorer of sections of NYC tells me that if there is one, it sure isn't a fair one
Maybe you should stop walking and ask the residents of those sections what they think of violent criminals. A straw poll of two co-workers of mine, both housing project raised and non-white, revealed that they agree with me on this.
posted by jonmc at 6:56 PM on March 23, 2005
Maybe you should stop walking and ask the residents of those sections what they think of violent criminals. A straw poll of two co-workers of mine, both housing project raised and non-white, revealed that they agree with me on this.
posted by jonmc at 6:56 PM on March 23, 2005
nixerman: Um, no, that's not true. A moral system has zero dependency on the number of people who adhere to it. Unless, of course, you implicitly assume morality is something dictated by society.
I meant requires in the sense of imposes a moral imperative which on review could have been worded better. I don't know why you chose that one sentence without the following one: "If it is universal all are obligated to adhere to it by its very existence, and if it is relative all are obligated to adhere to it to maintain its existence." I was talking only of interpersonal morals because we are discussing the problems of society. The number of people has nothing to do with it. If morals are universal one must obey the morals of society because all men would have those same morals. The actual laws of the state, which don't of necessity correlate with morality, are irrelevant to that particular point so I'm not sure how civil disobedience came into this discussion.
posted by Endymion at 7:01 PM on March 23, 2005
I meant requires in the sense of imposes a moral imperative which on review could have been worded better. I don't know why you chose that one sentence without the following one: "If it is universal all are obligated to adhere to it by its very existence, and if it is relative all are obligated to adhere to it to maintain its existence." I was talking only of interpersonal morals because we are discussing the problems of society. The number of people has nothing to do with it. If morals are universal one must obey the morals of society because all men would have those same morals. The actual laws of the state, which don't of necessity correlate with morality, are irrelevant to that particular point so I'm not sure how civil disobedience came into this discussion.
posted by Endymion at 7:01 PM on March 23, 2005
nixerman: You could perhaps make an argument that people in a society choose to adhere to some sort of social contract that requires them to obey the dictates of the State but that would be silly.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
There is no court of last resort for such a social contract, there is no way to escape or negotiate, and it's rarely entered into willingly. So really it's not much of a contract.
You're essential quibbling over semantics. No a Social Contract is not like a legal contract, you can't negotiate it and you don't enter it willingly, and it can be made with a minor. Although you certainly can escape it, that's to what committing a crime amounts. You cease to abide by the rules of the social contract and thus you void it and are denied the rights it acknowledged (or granted depending on your view.) An argument can also be made that simply abiding by the guidelines of the social contract and respecting the rights of others is a willing submission to it and acceptance of its scope and powers.
And when the State seeks to deprive you of your freedom and the accompanying rights you have little choice but to go to war with the State. Revolutionaries are no different from criminals in this sense. Both are at war with a State intent on depriving them of their freedom.
It a fascinating slight of hand by which you reversed the chain of causation of the State and the criminal. Its not the State that seeks to deprive the criminal of his rights, it is the criminal who deprives his victim of his rights and in the process forfeits his own. The criminal is the aggressor. He makes the first move. The state is not intent on depriving criminals of their liberties, it does so to secure the general welfare. Furthermore, the criminal class is not a social class burdened by the vicissitudes of fortunes it is a class composed of men and women who have made the willful decision to disavow the rights of their fellow man.
posted by Endymion at 7:43 PM on March 23, 2005
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
There is no court of last resort for such a social contract, there is no way to escape or negotiate, and it's rarely entered into willingly. So really it's not much of a contract.
You're essential quibbling over semantics. No a Social Contract is not like a legal contract, you can't negotiate it and you don't enter it willingly, and it can be made with a minor. Although you certainly can escape it, that's to what committing a crime amounts. You cease to abide by the rules of the social contract and thus you void it and are denied the rights it acknowledged (or granted depending on your view.) An argument can also be made that simply abiding by the guidelines of the social contract and respecting the rights of others is a willing submission to it and acceptance of its scope and powers.
And when the State seeks to deprive you of your freedom and the accompanying rights you have little choice but to go to war with the State. Revolutionaries are no different from criminals in this sense. Both are at war with a State intent on depriving them of their freedom.
It a fascinating slight of hand by which you reversed the chain of causation of the State and the criminal. Its not the State that seeks to deprive the criminal of his rights, it is the criminal who deprives his victim of his rights and in the process forfeits his own. The criminal is the aggressor. He makes the first move. The state is not intent on depriving criminals of their liberties, it does so to secure the general welfare. Furthermore, the criminal class is not a social class burdened by the vicissitudes of fortunes it is a class composed of men and women who have made the willful decision to disavow the rights of their fellow man.
posted by Endymion at 7:43 PM on March 23, 2005
All I can say about these two comments, is that it is a funny kind of economy that is built on a system which requires a payment that no one receives.
as I said explicitly above, it's a symbolic debt, which, sure, is a 'funny' kind of debt in that it's only analogous, not identical, to actual exchange of property, etc. But it's not really that hard to understand.
how does it help to improve society in any way? Sure, we could imprison people under harsh conditions out of some primitive desire for revenge but this won't actually make people any safer. The dead are dead and gone. They're nothing now. Non-existent. Never coming back. Ever.
punishment is not about the dead. It's about recognizing the significance of the acts that have been done. The "just don't do it again, mmkay?" approach to justice downplays the importance of what the offender did. Sentencing him to a punishment of some sort is a way of saying, what you did matters, had an impact on the lives of people. Instead of just explaining this verbally, we 'explain' it through action, by having an impact on this person's life in return. In the modern world, we are more civilized about it, and generally don't assign punishment fueled by desire for vengeance, but rather for a sense of justice. A punishment shouldn't express anger or emotional investment, but should still accurately reflect what the criminal did.
To say it doesn't matter once the victim is dead seems to lead to a fleeting and random sort of society. You have to take a longer view. Why fail someone on a test - if they didn't study, it's too late now; it's not like giving them an F is going to make them suddenly learn everything...
I don't usually think of myself as a Kantian, but I have to say the responses on this thread make me feel like his seemingly simplistic approach is the best way to go...
That said, if I were ever convicted of a violent felony, I would consider it my moral duty to escape prison (if such could be done without violence) in order to cease burdening society, and start atoning.
how noble of you. Thank goodness society wouldn't have to suffer without your input, just because of some little murderous indiscretion...
posted by mdn at 8:48 PM on March 23, 2005
as I said explicitly above, it's a symbolic debt, which, sure, is a 'funny' kind of debt in that it's only analogous, not identical, to actual exchange of property, etc. But it's not really that hard to understand.
how does it help to improve society in any way? Sure, we could imprison people under harsh conditions out of some primitive desire for revenge but this won't actually make people any safer. The dead are dead and gone. They're nothing now. Non-existent. Never coming back. Ever.
punishment is not about the dead. It's about recognizing the significance of the acts that have been done. The "just don't do it again, mmkay?" approach to justice downplays the importance of what the offender did. Sentencing him to a punishment of some sort is a way of saying, what you did matters, had an impact on the lives of people. Instead of just explaining this verbally, we 'explain' it through action, by having an impact on this person's life in return. In the modern world, we are more civilized about it, and generally don't assign punishment fueled by desire for vengeance, but rather for a sense of justice. A punishment shouldn't express anger or emotional investment, but should still accurately reflect what the criminal did.
To say it doesn't matter once the victim is dead seems to lead to a fleeting and random sort of society. You have to take a longer view. Why fail someone on a test - if they didn't study, it's too late now; it's not like giving them an F is going to make them suddenly learn everything...
I don't usually think of myself as a Kantian, but I have to say the responses on this thread make me feel like his seemingly simplistic approach is the best way to go...
That said, if I were ever convicted of a violent felony, I would consider it my moral duty to escape prison (if such could be done without violence) in order to cease burdening society, and start atoning.
how noble of you. Thank goodness society wouldn't have to suffer without your input, just because of some little murderous indiscretion...
posted by mdn at 8:48 PM on March 23, 2005
Endymion, thank you, that was well put. I was referring more to what I hope incarceration is accomplishing than to the legal basis of the US system; or maybe I was talking out my ass. It's tax season and I'm tired.
I'm actually quite for incarceration as the best of the bad solutions to the tricky problem of crime, but I refuse to think of it as either fair or just. I'm not for punishment for punishments sake. I don't particularly see it as a deterrent, as I don't think that most criminals ever think about being caught when they are doing the crime. Crime to me seems to be more about poor impulse control than some kind of risk/reward calculation. On the other hand, it does a great job of storing criminals until they are older if not wiser (I always liked the J. Cash quote: "walked out a wiser, weaker man".), and less likely to commit crimes or get away with it if they do.
I have no illusions however about the likelyhood of rehabilitation of most prisoners. I don't see their lives as being particularly valuable in the sense of going out and doing worthwhile things. Truth to tell, the only reason I don't support the death penalty in cases of pedophilia, rape, arson and murder is because I don't trust the state not to abuse the power against political dissenters and civil protesters.
MDN - That's me, noble to a fault. I don't expect to ever get convicted of a violent felony though, so I suppose I won't get the chance to display my sense of self-sacrifice.
Anybody hear/believe the statistic that over 85% of Americans have commited a felony? I'm not sure I do, but I'm curious about where it originated.
I like this thread, I'm always fascinated by escaped prisoners and wanted felons who manage to keep their nose clean for decades.
posted by BrotherCaine at 10:48 PM on March 23, 2005
I'm actually quite for incarceration as the best of the bad solutions to the tricky problem of crime, but I refuse to think of it as either fair or just. I'm not for punishment for punishments sake. I don't particularly see it as a deterrent, as I don't think that most criminals ever think about being caught when they are doing the crime. Crime to me seems to be more about poor impulse control than some kind of risk/reward calculation. On the other hand, it does a great job of storing criminals until they are older if not wiser (I always liked the J. Cash quote: "walked out a wiser, weaker man".), and less likely to commit crimes or get away with it if they do.
I have no illusions however about the likelyhood of rehabilitation of most prisoners. I don't see their lives as being particularly valuable in the sense of going out and doing worthwhile things. Truth to tell, the only reason I don't support the death penalty in cases of pedophilia, rape, arson and murder is because I don't trust the state not to abuse the power against political dissenters and civil protesters.
MDN - That's me, noble to a fault. I don't expect to ever get convicted of a violent felony though, so I suppose I won't get the chance to display my sense of self-sacrifice.
Anybody hear/believe the statistic that over 85% of Americans have commited a felony? I'm not sure I do, but I'm curious about where it originated.
I like this thread, I'm always fascinated by escaped prisoners and wanted felons who manage to keep their nose clean for decades.
posted by BrotherCaine at 10:48 PM on March 23, 2005
So, now we're dueling over who has the "power," (an illusory concept in this context) to direct the coversation? Listen, dude, I respect you, you can hold your own in an argument without wussing out, but this should be less about our personal styles than about the actual issues at hand.
No, no. I don't want to have to hold my own to have a conversation with you about an issue. That's the point. I don't want to duel with you, but I am willing to. But when every discussion is a duel many people who aren't willing to step toe to toe with you, but whom have valid and important experiences nonetheless, are excluded from the conversation.
Do you really have the power people give you, here? Or do you have the power you take? Because when you take up space, it precludes others from using it, and no one on this medium can stop you from taking it. I think it would be healthy for this community for us to leave room for disagreements to grow into discussion and dialogue.
posted by Embryo at 12:40 AM on March 24, 2005
I would just like to applaud everybody for this thread, I think it had the chance to deravel pretty quickly and become a pissing match and even though those forces attempted to prevail in the end I think everybody got their 2 cents in and nobody got scalped. Woohoo! Prison reform! Rarrr! :)
posted by cavalier at 7:19 AM on March 24, 2005
posted by cavalier at 7:19 AM on March 24, 2005
Here's a fine postscript to this thread-- text from a person who knew J.J. Jameson well-- his publisher.
This is text about the person, not the ideas or the theory that were discussed so fully here, but the actual human in practice. I want to place this text fully here so that this personal record will always be associated with the debate above. In the end, there are humans.
All I can tell you is that the man I knew (though i knew him 5% of how Dave Gecic knew him), was exactly the man described below.
Go here for original text
March 23 AM by David Gecic
As you've undoubtably heard, JJ Jameson, whom we've now been told is Norman Porter, has been arrested as a fugitive from the state of Massachusetts. JJ was a fixture on the Chicago poetry scene. I first met JJ, the poet at Puddin'head Bookstore, on Milwaukee Avenue in Wicker Park in Chicago in 1991 or 1992. He would come into the store to buy history books and argue history and politics. We become friends the day JJ walked in while I was sitting at the counter going over some bills. JJ asked me what I was doing and I told him I was trying to figure out how to pay the rent. He reached into his wallet and pulled out a 100 dollar bill and told me to pay him back when I could. Several days later when JJ came in I returned the money and tried to give him extra money or credit for books but he refused and said. "Pass it on to the next guy." Over the years I saw JJ do many acts of kindness and charity and saw him pass acts of kindness done to him to the next guy.
He cooked meals on Thanksgiving and Christmas at homeless shelters and senior homes. He brought a sick friend every week to chemotherapy treatments, he dropped food off when that friend became blind and could not care for himself. He went to chuch on Sunday, and at one time was president of his church board. He was very involved in Chicago politics, and among his friends and associates were congressmen and aldermen. He worked in the Ukranian Village for Harold Washington's re-election. He fought for and failed to save Maxwell Street. Many times JJ called me to help a friend or to help someone enter alcohol treatment programs. He called it "His Christian Duty". When Milwaukee Joe, the poet, had a stroke it was JJ who seached nursing homes until he found him and then visited him when he could. When my sister died it was JJ who let the poetry scene know because I could not. When Frank Bonnomo died JJ was vital to helping me overcome my grief. He was very kind and nuturing to young poets. He found shelter for battered women. He tried to find foster homes for kids that were sleeping on the floor of a police station.
Although we differed greatly on our political views he always respected mine. We pointed out each other's faults and failures. What always impressed me about JJ was that his acts of charity and kindness were not simply lip service but were part of his day to day life. He did not tell you where to go to get help, he was the help. Although I feel betrayed, I understand better now the demons that he lived with and that spawned the alcohol problems that plagued him and caused so many problems between us. I still believe that the JJ that I knew was a good man, and that he showed me how a good life should be lived.
March 23 PM
I am still trying to figure out what was fact and fiction in the life of Porter/Jameson. I know he is in bad health and hope they treat him well. He has had problems with both skin and throat cancer in addition to some strange enzyme disease. He said recently that he had been in Chicago for 20 years.
In 1999, The Puddin'head Press published Lady Rutherfurd's Cauliflower by JJ Jameson. The last edition is currently sold out. If you'd like to receive information on the next printing, please leave your contact info at phbooks@compuserve.com.
JJ's second book remains on hold.
posted by juggernautco at 4:01 PM on March 24, 2005
This is text about the person, not the ideas or the theory that were discussed so fully here, but the actual human in practice. I want to place this text fully here so that this personal record will always be associated with the debate above. In the end, there are humans.
All I can tell you is that the man I knew (though i knew him 5% of how Dave Gecic knew him), was exactly the man described below.
Go here for original text
March 23 AM by David Gecic
As you've undoubtably heard, JJ Jameson, whom we've now been told is Norman Porter, has been arrested as a fugitive from the state of Massachusetts. JJ was a fixture on the Chicago poetry scene. I first met JJ, the poet at Puddin'head Bookstore, on Milwaukee Avenue in Wicker Park in Chicago in 1991 or 1992. He would come into the store to buy history books and argue history and politics. We become friends the day JJ walked in while I was sitting at the counter going over some bills. JJ asked me what I was doing and I told him I was trying to figure out how to pay the rent. He reached into his wallet and pulled out a 100 dollar bill and told me to pay him back when I could. Several days later when JJ came in I returned the money and tried to give him extra money or credit for books but he refused and said. "Pass it on to the next guy." Over the years I saw JJ do many acts of kindness and charity and saw him pass acts of kindness done to him to the next guy.
He cooked meals on Thanksgiving and Christmas at homeless shelters and senior homes. He brought a sick friend every week to chemotherapy treatments, he dropped food off when that friend became blind and could not care for himself. He went to chuch on Sunday, and at one time was president of his church board. He was very involved in Chicago politics, and among his friends and associates were congressmen and aldermen. He worked in the Ukranian Village for Harold Washington's re-election. He fought for and failed to save Maxwell Street. Many times JJ called me to help a friend or to help someone enter alcohol treatment programs. He called it "His Christian Duty". When Milwaukee Joe, the poet, had a stroke it was JJ who seached nursing homes until he found him and then visited him when he could. When my sister died it was JJ who let the poetry scene know because I could not. When Frank Bonnomo died JJ was vital to helping me overcome my grief. He was very kind and nuturing to young poets. He found shelter for battered women. He tried to find foster homes for kids that were sleeping on the floor of a police station.
Although we differed greatly on our political views he always respected mine. We pointed out each other's faults and failures. What always impressed me about JJ was that his acts of charity and kindness were not simply lip service but were part of his day to day life. He did not tell you where to go to get help, he was the help. Although I feel betrayed, I understand better now the demons that he lived with and that spawned the alcohol problems that plagued him and caused so many problems between us. I still believe that the JJ that I knew was a good man, and that he showed me how a good life should be lived.
March 23 PM
I am still trying to figure out what was fact and fiction in the life of Porter/Jameson. I know he is in bad health and hope they treat him well. He has had problems with both skin and throat cancer in addition to some strange enzyme disease. He said recently that he had been in Chicago for 20 years.
In 1999, The Puddin'head Press published Lady Rutherfurd's Cauliflower by JJ Jameson. The last edition is currently sold out. If you'd like to receive information on the next printing, please leave your contact info at phbooks@compuserve.com.
JJ's second book remains on hold.
posted by juggernautco at 4:01 PM on March 24, 2005
« Older British shorts | it's all on livejournal Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Scoo at 6:36 AM on March 23, 2005