How does this happen?

[Arta]

I gave you an example of your logic applied to someone else. That showed that it was flawed. You just got all worked up after I proved to you that your logic is flawed.

That's plainly nonsensical. I explained, in the post you quoted but apparently did not read, why your analagy is inaccurate.

[dxoigmn]

We took all his finances away and he is living someplace in a dirt hole and being hunted like a deer so think open minded. Osama has been through so much stress isn't that punishing enough? We should give him a second chance. Don't you think so Mr. Liberal Communist? Poor Osama!

I have an idea! Let's put Osama on welfare since we took all his finances away.

No because as I pointed out in another thread, that his freedom is what needs to be taken away. He hasn't done his time, plain and simple. Until then we can starting putting your plans into action. Maybe he'll even get welfare but I doubt he'll survive any sentence he will be serving.

That's right! Double standard! What ever happened to equality?
This is good socialist thinking. Hail Hitler.

What the hell are you talking about?

[Invert]

I gave you an example of your logic applied to someone else. That showed that it was flawed. You just got all worked up after I proved to you that your logic is flawed.

That's plainly nonsensical. I explained, in the post you quoted but apparently did not read, why your analagy is inaccurate.

Fine let's plug in Sadam instead of Osama.
Your logic implies that we should give everyone a second chance and that we should treat everyone equally.

[Arta]

Given the nature of Saddam's crimes, I doubt that he would ever be released from prison (assuming that he's not executed). Thus, he will not have a second chance. I think that's fair, because he is a particularly egregious criminal. Where's the flaw?

[Adron]

Fine let's plug in Sadam instead of Osama.
Your logic implies that we should give everyone a second chance and that we should treat everyone equally.

We absolutely should give everyone a second chance. There are plenty of cases where people have changed completely. Particulary on death row, many who were young, irresponsible, then get some reading, education, maybe religion, and would make great citizens.

[Invert]

Fine let's plug in Sadam instead of Osama.
Your logic implies that we should give everyone a second chance and that we should treat everyone equally.

We absolutely should give everyone a second chance. There are plenty of cases where people have changed completely. Particulary on death row, many who were young, irresponsible, then get some reading, education, maybe religion, and would make great citizens.

So hypothetically, if we catch Osama and he tells us all how sorry he is we should give him a second chance?

If you answer "yes" can we send him to Sweden?

[Arta]

In an idea world, if someone like Saddam or bin Laden could be shown to have been rehabilitated, I would think should have a second chance, yes.

In the real world, their crimes are of such severity that I doubt it's possible for them to show a level of contrition sufficent for people to believe that they are different. Thus, the opportunity of a second chance is unavailable to them. They are, in other words, beyond redemption.

[Adron]

So hypothetically, if we catch Osama and he tells us all how sorry he is we should give him a second chance?

If you answer "yes" can we send him to Sweden?

Let's not get into particulars of what is required... If he shows that he is rehabilitated, yes, he should be given a second chance.

[Invert]

In an idea world, if someone like Saddam or bin Laden could be shown to have been rehabilitated, I would think should have a second chance, yes.

In the real world, their crimes are of such severity that I doubt it's possible for them to show a level of contrition sufficent for people to believe that they are different. Thus, the opportunity of a second chance is unavailable to them. They are, in other words, beyond redemption.

You were the one saying that everyone should have the same rights and everyone be treated the same and equally. Now you are saying that not everyone should be treated the same. You are proving my point and I believe contradicting yourself. There had never been solid evidence of people changing or such thing as rehabilitation relating to incarceration. This is why we judge people by the severity of their crime and not by weather they will rehabilitate.

You do not know who is beyond and who is not beyond redemption, just like you don't know weather that that guy that was elected to the school board is beyond redemption.

[Adron]

There had never been solid evidence of people changing or such thing as rehabilitation relating to incarceration. This is why we judge people by the severity of their crime and not by weather they will rehabilitate.

You do not know who is beyond and who is not beyond redemption, just like you don't know weather that that guy that was elected to the school board is beyond redemption.

I think you make some good points here. I do believe that there have been people changing and / or rehabilitated. I do not think that incarceration in itself typically helps, and therefor, incarceration needs improvements.

And we should not judge people purely by the severity of their crime. There should be two components: Punishment for the crime, and rehabilitation until they are ready for their second chance. This is where the death penalty is so off - the death penalty belongs to the rehabilitation scale, not to the punishment scale.

And you are absolutely right that we do not know who is beyond redemption or not. We can never know; yet we must do our best to determine.

[Invert]

There had never been solid evidence of people changing or such thing as rehabilitation relating to incarceration. This is why we judge people by the severity of their crime and not by weather they will rehabilitate.

You do not know who is beyond and who is not beyond redemption, just like you don't know weather that that guy that was elected to the school board is beyond redemption.

I think you make some good points here. I do believe that there have been people changing and / or rehabilitated. I do not think that incarceration in itself typically helps, and therefor, incarceration needs improvements.

And we should not judge people purely by the severity of their crime. There should be two components: Punishment for the crime, and rehabilitation until they are ready for their second chance. This is where the death penalty is so off - the death penalty belongs to the rehabilitation scale, not to the punishment scale.

And you are absolutely right that we do not know who is beyond redemption or not. We can never know; yet we must do our best to determine.

Right, the main reason for all of this is not to rehabilitate someone or to give someone a second chance this whole system is done for our protection everything else is secondary. As human nature we want to eliminate all that is harmful to us, our survival as a stable society is a lot more important than one person being changed and given a second chance.

[iago]

I think that you're all missing part of the point here

I think people who have been caught, tried, punished, have served their punishment and then been released back into society, should have the same rights as everyone else.

The person in question, from what I understand, was caught, tried, and started being punished.  He hsan't completed the punishment phase, and has yet to be released.  If he hasn't completed the cycle, then all the arguments here about rehabilitation don't apply to this guy. 

[Adron]

Right, the main reason for all of this is not to rehabilitate someone or to give someone a second chance this whole system is done for our protection everything else is secondary. As human nature we want to eliminate all that is harmful to us, our survival as a stable society is a lot more important than one person being changed and given a second chance.

You are off. If the system is for your protection, the main priority of it is rehabilitation. How is putting someone behind bars for 10 years, then letting them out, still in the mind of robbing, raping and murdering good for your protection? Changing people so they are no longer harmful to you should be your main focus.

[Adron]

The person in question, from what I understand, was caught, tried, and started being punished.  He hsan't completed the punishment phase, and has yet to be released.  If he hasn't completed the cycle, then all the arguments here about rehabilitation don't apply to this guy. 

Actually, I think he had entered the rehabilitation phase, being released on parole. He did of course show that rehabilitation was incomplete when he violated parole and got put behind bars again...

[iago]

The person in question, from what I understand, was caught, tried, and started being punished.  He hsan't completed the punishment phase, and has yet to be released.  If he hasn't completed the cycle, then all the arguments here about rehabilitation don't apply to this guy. 

Actually, I think he had entered the rehabilitation phase, being released on parole. He did of course show that rehabilitation was incomplete when he violated parole and got put behind bars again...

Well, I meant he was in jail :-P