----------
> From: john grigg <starman125@hotmail.com>
> Stirling Westrup made some enlightened comments about how even the most
> cruel and sadistic individuals in the future will be seen as "sick" and not
> evil and worthy of severe punishments as in our day. I do feel that some
> people commit heinous crimes at least partially from mental illness and
> "psychological demons" while others are essentially healthy and simply
> choose the wrong choice.
[...]
> Should all criminals be seen as "ill" and be treated and not punished? I am
> not that enlightened yet and may never be, especially for crimes like murder
> and rape.
Same here. It is, IMHO, not more "enlightened" to prefer
treatment to punishment or vice versa, btw; morality and
justice are subjective and rather arbitrary matters of
personal preference. It would therefore be a good idea
if everyone could decide for him/herself (in a standard
legal contract) what should happen to people that do
damage to them or their property (within certain
parameters of public consensus, of course).
Especially in the case of murder such a contract
could solve a lot of legal/moral problems. It would
also be interesting to see whether people who have
chosen "treatment" or soft punishments for their
potential murderers would get whacked more often
than those who have selected tough punishments,
btw. This assumes that one's preferences are
made public, of course. I can see people wearing
t-shirts which warn would-be assailants about the
hideous tortures they'll have to endure in VR Hell
should they kill them. Could be quite effective,
especially when a picture of one's favorite torture
device is included.
> Perhaps treatment and punishment can be fused together.
Yes, this might be a reasonable compromize for many
people.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:03 MDT