Woman hating incel

Well, first of all, let me start by saying once again I'm not suggesting you are wrong. I am simply presenting different views (which aren't even mine actually, I just happen to know about them). Secondly, it's not that silly considering that for the longest time in criminal justice theory, these two where the most advocated options out there. I think you do this dichotomy a disservice by simply brushing it off as "silly". The "revenge" theory had different names, sure, but essentially it boils down to the same thing. You say you want "justice", which is a term that sounds big and deep, but what does it actually mean? Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you want offenders to have an unpleasant time, because they did something really bad. You argue it's not revenge, but only the appropriate reaction to their behavior, but for me (and a lot of criminal justice scholars) that pretty much is the same thing as revenge, if you break it down. Revenge with a motive, but still revenge. So, you can call it justice if you think that transports the idea better, but I'm not sure if that really is something entirely different from revenge, as you claim it is. That being said, keep in mind I'm not a native english speaker, so my terminology here might be a little off for that reason.

I'd be glad, if you could list a few. Because I'm not certain that there are actually that many, which don't boil down to a felt need for revenge.

I think I do. In criminal justice theory, your approach is represented by the latin phrase "punitur, quia peccatum est", which translates to "Punishment is needed, because injustice was committed". Your view sounds very similar to Immanuel Kants theory of justice, which roughly translates to something like this (recited from memory): "If there was a society, which decided to resolve itself, every criminal first would have to get what his actions are worth. Then, and only then, the people could depart and live their lives. That is what justice means." Again, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that essentially what you want? That every criminal "gets what his actions are worth" or in your words "getting the deserved consequence of their horrible actions"? If that's the case, you are advocating for an "absolute theory of punishment" by definition. That's not what I call it, that's what it's called in the criminal law literature. It's stems from a latin phrase "poena absoluta est ab effectu". And if you think, that Kant is right with what he said, you should know that his theory is called "vengeance"-theory. Again, maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker, but isn't vengeance and revenge pretty alike?

That depends entirely on what you want to achieve with punishment. Something can only be useful or useless, if you defined a specific goal first. Then, and only then, you can evaluate if something is useful or helpful. So, it all comes down to which kind of criminal justice theory you advocate for:

If you advocate for "preventive theories of punishment" („punitur, sed ne peccetur" - "Punishment is needed, so that no futher injustice is committed") like Anselm von Feuerbach, Franz von Liszt, Welzel or Jakobs in more recent times for example, which can be broken down into different categories of course, it doesn't make much sense to put people in prison as we know from criminological findings. But since you agreed to that part, I don't think it's necessary to go over these findings again.

If you advocate for "absolute theories of punishment" like Kant or Hegel (which you seem to be doing), then prison punishment absolutely makes sense. In fact, there isn't much that would make more sense than that. It's depatable if this form of punishment is "helpful for society" as you said - that depends on what you mean by "helpful" - , but at least there is a good explanation as to why we would to it. So, in that case, yes it does make sense.

If you advocate for a mix of the two (like most criminal justice scholars do nowadays), then prison punishment makes sense in some cases, but not in others. It depends very much on which crime was committed, by whom and why. Sometimes prison can be the best option, in other cases not so much.

If you advocate for "retributive theories of punishment" (like I tend to do), prison punishment doesn't "make sense" in and for itself, however it is needed because the vast majority of society has a felt need for "revenge" or "justice". If you don't satisfy that need, the people in society first get discontent, then angry, then they take justice in their own hands and eventually the society as a whole takes damage. If that happens often enough, the damage get unrepairable and society impends to break apart (which we do not want). Therefore, to avoid all of that (and only for that reason), punishment is needed and useful. A far better - yet completely unrealistic - alternative would be that every single person in society lets go of their felt need for revenge and just forgives the criminal. That would be a much better solution for everybody - the criminal, the victim, society, the criminal law apparatus, the tax payer, and so on.

Then help me out. What good does it do apart from the things I already pointed out in the short recollection above. I'm not sure if it actually does "tons of good", which is a bit a an exaggeration, don't you think?

 

You were speaking to ME about MY views, which is what I was responding to. I never claimed that nobody in the history of the justice system has advocated for revenge.

Yeah, that's precisely the problem. You don't see the difference between justice and revenge. I don't know how to explain it to you, but they are extremely different. It's not really my fault if you don't understand what justice means and think it's the same thing as revenge.

Yeah, I know that you don't think they are different. But they are. So... I don't know how to explain that.

I'm honestly baffled that you don't see that there are valuable reasons for people to have legal consequences for committing crimes... there is literally no point in us even having laws if there are no unpleasant consequences for breaking them. We can see that clearly with what's going on in my home state of California right now. Down south at least, I can't remember exactly where or which government official decided to do this, but they basically made it to where people won't be arrested for shoplifting. And you know what has happened? Absolutely freaking chaos. It's become a regular occurance for people to go down to stores and just steal a whole bunch of crap, because they know they will have no consequences. That's what happens when people don't have any punishment for bad actions.

This is extremely simple to see if we go back as far as childhood. Have you ever met a person who grew up with parents who never punished them for anything, ever, and just let them do whatever they want without any negative consequences? Those people grow up to be insufferable, arrogant, self centered, selfish d-bags. Because it is an ingrained part of our human psychology that we need discipline. We need negative consequences for the actions we do that are evil and cause harm to ourselves and others. It's what teaches us to stop doing those things.

I don't care what people have decided to call some philosopher's theory. Revenge and justice are not the same thing... they just aren't. I have no idea how to explain that to you, because it's a complicated thing and I'm not sure I have the words. But just because I don't have all the fancy words you have and I can't recite philosopher's from memory doesn't mean I'm wrong.

But you're the one who just made the claim that it was useless... not me.

Wait, so you're saying that my theory is all about revenge, but yet this is what you believe? This sounds like it is entirely about revenge... that sounds extremely unhealthy imo.

I just totally disagree with that. The criminal learns absolutely nothing and will never change if he has no consequences for his actions. If we all go around just letting everything go and never doling out any justice (yes, JUSTICE, not revenge, because they are different), then everybody in the world is going to become a criminal. Why wouldn't they? Why would we even have laws? I'm baffled as to how you think society wouldn't completely fall apart into total chaos and destruction if your view was actually implemented.

And again, forgiveness and justice can go hand in hand. Because justice isn't about revenge. You can absolutely forgive someone and still want justice to be served against them. You just don't see that as possible because you conflate justice with revenge.

No, I obviously don't think that, or I wouldn't have said it. I already explained some of it above, but tbh, I'm really not interested in continuing to have my views picked apart and analyzed by you when you don't understand what justice even is. If you think justice is the same thing as revenge, then of course you don't agree with me. I wouldn't agree with me either if I thought that. So I don't see how we are ever going to come to any understanding or common ground if you you can't see the difference.

I'm confused as to why you don't think that is what I'm doing... you just admitted right above this that I agreed with some of the "preventative theories of punishment" theory. Which I do. But then for some reason you go on to say I'm only advocating for the absolute theory, not a mix of the two. That seems like a twisting of my views. Which is why I really dislike people sticking me into a box of what they claim I believe.

 

Punishment ( consequences) deter a lot of people from committing offenses. There’s a reason when California passed the new law of no real punishment ( consequence) for theft under $900 that property crimes soared. Paying fines or tickets keep many people from Speeding, driving drunk, etc.
it doesn’t stop everyone but it dies deter many. So, yeah, I think it does tons of good.

 

I have a question for you about this. Do you think that forgiveness erases all of the wrong done to a person?

Let's say your ideal world here is made a reality. Now let's say a man goes out and r*pes a woman. He gets pleasure from it, he has no negative consequences at all because she just forgives him, so he doesn't even need to feel guilty -- the most basic negative consequence of committing a heinous crime against another person -- and he is free to just go on and do it again to as many other women as he wants.

Do you truly think that "forgiveness" will fix all of that? Do you think all of the women raped by this man are going to be just fine and have a totally normal life, if they forgive him? Or do you understand the reality that just because you forgive someone, doesn't mean all of your trauma goes away? Those women are now going to have to live with that trauma for the rest of their lives, while that man will continue on doing the same thing to countless other people. Because why wouldn't he, if nothing bad ever happens to him for it and he's never punished for it? What would be the deterrant for him to stop doing this to women?

I just think you have a greatly flawed view of both justice and forgiveness. I'm a Christian, so I'm obviously a huge proponent of forgiveness. That's basically one of the cornerstones of my entire religion. But forgiveness doesn't just magically fix everything. Forgiveness will help someone move on from trauma, but it's not a magic cure-all that will take all the trauma away.

My ideal world, in terms of punishment, would be a Biblical one, similar to what God established for the Israelites in the Old Testament. To give one example, if you steal someone's ox, you have to pay them back two oxens of your own. So there is great deterrant for people to not steal, because they will have to pay back double what they took. And they don't pay that back to the government, but to the actual person they did the wrong to.

And for more serious crimes, like rape and murder, those people are to be killed. Not only is that a very good deterrant that should certainly make people think twice about doing that, but it is also vitally important to God that we understand the severity of sin. That's one important element of this conversation for me that I didn't really want to get into, because I don't want to have a religious debate. But the Bible makes it very clear that God is not happy when we downplay sin and don't recognize its severity. So for that reason, I don't at all agree with having a society in which we feel great pity for criminals getting punished for their actions. There are many other Biblical principles that get into that, but I don't want to get into that further here.

But it's also important to note that alongside all of these laws established, God is also all about forgiveness and tells his people to forgive "seventy times seven." In other words, always. He forgives us, so we are called to forgive others. But that doesn't erase the need for justice. Justice isn't a lack of forgiveness, and forgiveness isn't, in itself, complete justice. There is more that needs to be done, and it can be done alongside forgiveness.

 

I always had a feeling that I'd see this guy on the news at some point. I randomly stumbled across his YouTube channel about a year ago before it got taken down. His channel was called "Jay Rockefeller" back then. I remember seeing one video where he was harassing some teenage girl and following her around in a Costco parking lot; she couldn't have been more than 15 years old. This guy is completely insane and needs to be put in a psychiatric institution for a long time.

 

It's insane and he needs to be caught

 

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that punishment is useless IF you try to make the offender a better person and/or gain any positive effect for the victim or society other than satisfying their empirically documented need for "consequences" (I would call it vengeance, you would call it justice). That we need punishment in the world we live in is absolutely clear. It would be ludicrous to argue anything else. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need it but as everyone knows, we don't live in an ideal world.

Exactly. If you think that thought to its end, you have made my argument for me pretty much. The point of & reason for punishment is not a vague idea of "justice" (vague because it's extremely hard, almost impossible, to define as you said yourself), but rather the empirically known need for a "discharge of anger" if you will. If you don't satisfy this naturally occuring need for "consequences" (to get away from the terms revenge and justice), chaos occurs fast and society will break apart eventually. I hope that you see now, that we are not even that far apart in our views.

No, it certainly doesn't and I have repeatedly made that very clear I think. I literally said twice, that I don't think you are wrong. If you are talking about topics like the purpose of criminal law and "justice", there is no absolute right and wrong. There is only "empirically more supported" and "empirically less supported" and sometimes "empirically not supported". But in order to know what is empirically supported - as opposed to "only" logically sound -, you have to think this all through in it's entirety and that takes years probably. I'm not trying to be a smartass (although I can understand it comes across like that), but I had to think about these things for close to six years every single day very intensly. I think I know a thing or two about this by now.

I didn't make that claim. I made the claim that punishment is useless IF you want to anything other than get "revenge" or "justice" or "consequences" or whatever you want to call it.

Let me explain it differently, maybe it's easier to understand it then: I'll take you as an example because you very vocally made clear you think criminals must get appropriate consequences for their actions. That feeling, that believe, is usually called "Vergeltungsbedürfnis" in my language, which most accurately translates to "need for vengeance". Maybe that's a language barrier here, I'm not sure. But that's not that important. What's more important is, that not only you have this feeling but the vast majority of people in our society (me included btw). What happens when there is no approriate punishment for criminals is, that the people with these feeelings get angry. Depending on what crime we are talking about and how many crimes occur, this anger grows over time. First, they lose their trust in the state and the criminal law apparatus. Eventually, it reaches a point where people are so angry about the entire situation, that they take "justice" into their own hands. At that point, the damage to society is already so great, that you can't really go back. Society falls apart. Chaos ensues. That's what we don't want because we learned a long time ago thoughout times, that life is easier when we are part of a more or less functioning society. That's why we need punishment. We need it to keep our society together. So, I guess you could say, "justice" how you understand it is the basis of this argument (and only that), but it's not the entire argument. I can't be because that would be a so called naturalistic fallacy: You cannot deduct of an ought from an is. Or to apply it to our case: You cannot say there must be punishment just because people have a need for punishment. That's a naturalistic fallacy. So, the argument must go further and I think it must logically lead to the conclusion I tried to describe. That's why I said, we aren't as far apart as it seems. There are only one or two logical steps between our arguments.

And as we know from criminology, he will not learn anything if we put him in prison either in most cases. Prisons do not make criminals better people. They do not learn in prison. Period. Never have, never will. We tried that for a long time and in many different ways and it simply didn't work. But that's okay, because prisons are not meant to make people better in the first palce (at least if you don't follow a preventive theory of punishment; if you do, prisons are indeed meant to do that and they fail terribly at that). Oh, and by the way: Comparing prison with other form of punishments doesn't really make sense as they are completely different things. I don't know if you ever were inside of a prison, but let me tell you: It's not pleasant at all, no matter what people say. You wouldn't want to be in there a single day if you don't absolutely have to. If you don't count the death penalty and torture, there are only very few things more unpleasant than the inside of a prison (unless you are an inmate in some scandinavian prisons maybe).

I never claimed there should be no consequences. But prison isn't the only option. There are plenty of options, which are far better way to make the offender learn. Community service for example is a very good response for a lot of crimes. Obvioulsy not for "hard" crimes like murder, rape and so on, but for minor offenses like theft or criminal mischief it can be an excellent tool, because a) the offender doesn't get away without any consequences and b) society has much more from it than just putting him behind bars and c) nobody has to pay anything really and d) offenders tend to learn much more from that than from prison. That satisfies societies need for vengeance far better than prison in a lot of cases, because the results are much more visible for society.

That's because apparantly you misinterpreted my view.

You misunderstood what I said, I didn't "admit" anything of the sorts. That part of my sentence was directed at the criminological findings I described earlier and at my understanding, that you agreed with those findings.

And I'm sorry for putting a "label" on your believes as I understand them. But from what I've read in this thread from you (and maybe I simply didn't understand you correctly, although I think I did) doesn't contain any elements, which are characteristical for the preventive theories:
1. Punishment as deterrent ("negative special prevention theory" if directed at the offender, "negative general prevention theory" if directed at scoiety)
2. Punishment as a reinforcement in the believe of validity of the norms ("positive general prevention theory")
3. Punishment as a tool for betterment of the offender ("positive special prevention theory")

What you said, however, is almost 100% what Kant or Hegel believed for example: Punishment, because injustice was committed. So, to make very clear what I think your view is (and please correct me, if you think I didn't repeat your view accurately): I think, that you see the reason for & purpose of punishment (especially prison) in creating "justice", or - to avoid the word - in giving criminals what they deserve. If that (and only that) is your view, you are advocating for an absolute theory (like Kant did too). If, on the other hand, you believe one or multiple of the three items I listed above is also correct, you are indeed advocating for a mixed theory like many criminal law scholars do. In that case, however, you must know that there are multiple criticisms that can be raised against such a view. These ideas are decades old and entire libraries have been written about them. These ideas are not new in the slightest. The flaws of such views are pretty well discussed at this point, if you take a look at the relevant literature. That doesn't necessarily mean, that such a view is "wrong" of course but it certainly doesn't make as much sense as other theories do. So, you can't have it both ways. Either you advocate for an absolute theory (which is plausible), but then you can't also advocate for on of the three things above without creating complicated problems and contradictions OR you advocate for a preventive theory, but then prison makes no sense whatsoever because it makes prevention pretty much impossible. So, it's one or the other. Or, of course, you formulate an entirely new theory. But I doubt that will be an easy endeavour since somebody had the same idea in the past already most likely. Having an "original" idea is very difficult with these kind of topics.

They only do, if there is a reasonably high probability of getting caught AND the consequences are "bad" enough. And even then, the people who commit the vast majority of crimes usually don't think about the consequences. That changes when you look at white collar crime but that's not really what we are talking about.

Wow, now you really made an effort to frame my view the wrong way. That's not even close to what I said.

I'm not even gonna answer that, because it's just a (ridiculously bad) strawman argument. I didn't say anything even close to such nonsense.

...which is EXACTLY what I said as well.

That's not criminal law, but civil law. That's an entire different subject, which has nothing to do with punishment whatsoever.

Yea, that's a wonderful idea. Let's just do the exact thing we don't want and sell that as justice. No, thanks. I'm very glad I live in a country that abolished such horrific practices a long time ago. Also, too many people have been killed before they were proven not guilty. Call me lame, but even a single person killed that way even though they were not guilty is enough of a reason not to use such practices. If that is what God wants or at least accepts, I'm glad I'm an atheist.

Nobody said you should feel pitty.

So, to put this very long post to an end, let me just say this: I certainly agree, that this incel guy is pathetic and should face the approriate consequences (since I do have a natural need for vengeance like the vast majority of people do).

 

Tbh, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation further. It's not even really on topic for the thread at this point, and it's rather exhausting.

 

Classic. Whatever.

 

From what I know of the US prison system, it is often for-profit and operates with the intention of making money, not reforming the prisoners. This to me is absolutely asinine. The amount of people (often poor or otherwise disadvantaged) in prison for absolutely victimless crimes, only to bump up the numbers, is absolutely immoral.

When it comes to more severe crime, I think one of you already said it; the death penalty is flawed because of the amount of times an innocent person has been executed. Beyond that, the method of execution used in the US is barbaric; at least in the UK the method was hanging, which when performed properly is quick, effective, and painless. Meanwhile, electric chairs and lethal injections are both extremely painful methods that serve no purpose beyond cruelty.

Lastly, and I do not wish to trigger a religious debate here, but while Jesus states that he did not come to abolish the law of the prophets, he also stated "Render unto Caesar" which to me makes it pretty clear that the Christian position would be to obey the justice system of the place in which the Christian resides. A medieval justice system would not work in modern times. Indeed, the only countries that still adopt justice systems like it are fundamentalist hellholes like Saudi Arabia.

 

Wow... that's unnecessary. I was not rude to you in the slightest. I merely said that this conversation has been mentally and emotionally taxing, and I don't think it is worth continuing to debate about. I think we have exhausted everything that needs to be said, and we just disagree, and I'm ready to move on with my day. I don't think it'sa good use of time to keep going in circles. But if you want to be a baby about it and act like me prioritizing my time and mental/emotional energy on better things is "classic," that's your choice.

 

Of course. Pretty sure I never suggested anybody should break the law... "rendering unto Ceaser" doesn't mean the government is always right and that Christians are supposed to just do what they say without advocating for change. That's not what that verse means at all.

 

You have to stop interpreting stuff into what I actually say. Honestly, it baffles me how much you can read into a two word answer.

The only reason why I said "Classic" is because this is indeed classic behavior on this forum. I've been a member for many years and I have seen this repeatedly over the years. People willingly engage in lengthy discussions with each other and as soon as it starts getting somewhere finally, people back out for it "being exhausting".

I agree, the "Whatever" part of my answer is a bit loaded with frustration, because I am indeed a little bit frustrated. I don't like when people engage in exciting conversations with me, then start misrepresenting my view in ridicoulus ways and then, when I try to set it straight, just leave without saying a single word about my response. That's the conversational equivalent of blue balls. I can't stop you, obviously, nor do I want to keep you in a discussion you don't wanna be part of, but I do not agree everything has been said and I don't think we are going in circles at all. I mean how could we, if apparantly you didn't even understand my point this far.

So, before calling people rude and a baby, maybe put a little bit of effort into understanding what the other person is actually saying, not what you think he is saying. If you happen to change your mind about not wanting to discuss this, you are very welcome to DM me to discuss this matter to it's end without derailing a thread. If not, that's okay but then don't provoke me by calling me rude when I'm not. Thanks.

 

I'm not saying you're saying to break the law. I'm just relating the quote from Jesus back to what you said about wanting a biblical justice system. Even Jesus himself seemed not to want this based on that quote. Then again, he also said he did not come to abolish the old law, so who knows what any of it means.

 

This has happened to me before. Not on here but in other places. It's why I try not to engage in lengthy debates where I can.

*Always Sunny theme starts playing*

"Daniel engaged in a lengthy debate."

 

That's why I said what I said, because you are greatly misinterpreting that quote and taking it out of context. Jesus is God and he affirms the Old Testament, as you recognize in your next sentence. Telling his people to render to Ceaser what is Ceaser's has nothing to do with him making a statement about not agreeing with God the Father's system of justice he established with the Israelites. That's all I am saying. The quote you pulled has nothing to do with what you are suggesting it means. I'm not trying to argue or be rude, I'm just informing you that that is incorrect.

 

I can call your post rude if I felt it was rude, which I did... even you admitted that it was "loaded with frustration." Sorry you're frustrated.

You have also been misrepresenting and misunderstanding my views a ton, and continuously say things like "this is what you believe" when it's not accurate to what I believe at all. I know myself, and I know that when people continuously do that to me, it gets me a bit heated. Especially when you continue to conflate justice with revenge, and therefore are telling me that I am all about revenge, when I literally detest revenge and think it is a very negative, sinful thing. Repeatedly declaring to me that my view is all about promoting something that I find to be sinful, is highly frustrating and very inaccurate. And I just don't personally find this conversation important enough to continue if that's how it's going to go. I also have already stated many times that I don't really full know how to put into words some of the things I am thinking, which also gets me very frustrated. I hate not having the words for things, I hate being misunderstood, and I hate not being able to explain myself properly. All three of those things are happening constantly in this conversation, so I am choosing for myself to let this go and move on with my day. I love conversations, but I don't enjoy frustrating debates, and that's what this has become for me.

I'm not going to apologize for prioritizing my own mental and emotional health by choosing to ens the conversation. That's one of the biggest lessons I've been learning and is pretty much the only reason I'm even capable of being on this site. I used to be incapable of letting things go and knowing when to just accept that we probably aren't going to understand each other or see eye to eye on this, and that's okay, so I should move on. I have finally learned how to do that, and it's a very healthy thing to do. So I'm not going to be made to feel bad for "giving you conversational blue balls."

 

And frustration is rudeness now? What the hell are you even saying....At this point is just comes across like you don't want to have your believes challenged and therefore you search for whatever argument you can find to end this conversation without admitting that. But whatever. Let's just end this here. If that short one-liner is your response to - as I find - legitimate critism, this has no point anymore. If anything, you are being rude.

 

I've always taken the quote to infer the idea of separation of Church and state. Compared to other religions (for example Islam) where the religious doctrine is also intended to be state doctrine. Christianity is designed to exist alongside state authority and potentially influence it, not usurp it. Just to be clear, I'm NOT saying you think this, it's just something reading the back and forth brought to mind.

Discussing this further would mean delving into what denomination of Christian you even are, and that would derail the thread past the point of no return.

 

Dude, you are being so ridiculous. I just edited my post right as you replied, so you're welcome to read the rest of what I said if you want. But I am, in absolutely no way, being rude to you. And I very much enjoy having my beliefs challenged... yet another example of you misrepresenting me as a person and assuming you know things about me that you don't. And you wonder why I don't want to continue the conversation.