I'm not defining evil. I'm defining a public threat.

And any person that truly believes in rehabilitation of rapers, murderers, and violent people - let them live in your home if you trust them. Frankly, the statistics on the success of "rehabilitation" speak for themselves. In fact, the rehabilitation process ends up making people worse than they were because they have to adapt and conform in that environment in order to survive.

Playing philosophy and ethics doesn't solve the problem. We all want some special thing that we can do that would change a person from committing the crimes they do, but in reality something like that just doesn't exist. Prisons make people worse - especially si...

I'm not defining evil. I'm defining a public threat.

And any person that truly believes in rehabilitation of rapers, murderers, and violent people - let them live in your home if you trust them. Frankly, the statistics on the success of "rehabilitation" speak for themselves. In fact, the rehabilitation process ends up making people worse than they were because they have to adapt and conform in that environment in order to survive.

Playing philosophy and ethics doesn't solve the problem. We all want some special thing that we can do that would change a person from committing the crimes they do, but in reality something like that just doesn't exist. Prisons make people worse - especially since they are so overcrowded they have to be treated like human cattle farms. Maybe rehabilitation would have a more successful effect if the truly brutal and sadistic people were culled off.

Death penalties may or may not detract others from killing but it is a 100% certainty that an executed killer will not kill again and there is no further cost to the public.

I understand the point you were making. I'm not saying I agree with the current methods, nor that I think that we could solve any problem with philosophy. I'm just stating that society, as it is, doesn't know how to categorize acts of this kind (with the offender not knowing the difference) in terms of good and wrong in a way we are used to do. The outcome doesn't change anything about the fact that he has shown to be a threat to the public.

But one might ask on what ground we must judge, if people were not able to distinct between good or bad. A public threat is a clear thing, but it is also considered a bad thing. A soldier killing enemies to protect the country, we consider to be a good ...

I understand the point you were making. I'm not saying I agree with the current methods, nor that I think that we could solve any problem with philosophy. I'm just stating that society, as it is, doesn't know how to categorize acts of this kind (with the offender not knowing the difference) in terms of good and wrong in a way we are used to do. The outcome doesn't change anything about the fact that he has shown to be a threat to the public.

But one might ask on what ground we must judge, if people were not able to distinct between good or bad. A public threat is a clear thing, but it is also considered a bad thing. A soldier killing enemies to protect the country, we consider to be a good thing. Whether he enjoys the killing or not (we don't ask).

Like it or not, but what we call justice and how we have institutionalized it, rests on our concept of right and wrong, not who's a threat and who's not.

But one might ask on what ground we must judge

On the grounds of how it effects other people? I'm referring to those that are a real threat to society. Those that took lives brutally or without compunction.

A soldier killing enemies to protect the country, we consider to be a good thing

True, but that soldier is also under the threat of being killed by those he is attacking - and they are still constrained by simple considerations of human compassion. Those that serve in the military who perform atrocities are still charged and punished.

but what we call justice and how we have institutionalized it, rests on our concept of right and wrong, not who's a t...

read more»

But one might ask on what ground we must judge

On the grounds of how it effects other people? I'm referring to those that are a real threat to society. Those that took lives brutally or without compunction.

A soldier killing enemies to protect the country, we consider to be a good thing

True, but that soldier is also under the threat of being killed by those he is attacking - and they are still constrained by simple considerations of human compassion. Those that serve in the military who perform atrocities are still charged and punished.

but what we call justice and how we have institutionalized it, rests on our concept of right and wrong, not who's a threat and who's not.

I disagree to a certain extent. I think that our penal institutions are built around politics, not ethics. There are those imprisoned who shouldn't be because they broke laws that should not be laws. Our prisons are filled with people that are no real threat and that detracts from any effectiveness to deal with those that are.

I think that a hard choice need be made. Either we wisen up and stop incarcerating 1/10th of our population for "sin" crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc) or we need to clean out the prisons by getting rid of those that are lost cases - lifers.

It's not a matter of right and wrong, but a matter of numbers and cost.

There are those imprisoned who shouldn't be because they broke laws that should not be laws

Yes, the rulers of the world are not the philosophers, not the wise kings, nor his knights. At the table of law makers isn't place for writers, teachers, dreamers, or other architects of humanity to join.

Whatever building was put in our world, there was a plan first.

But theory (the plan) and practice (the building) never match 100%. There's always this embarrassing difference between what we would like to see and what we actually see. But as a thinker, or a dreamer if you wish, I keep drafts in my pockets and lay them beside reality, trying to see the difference, or faults that s...

There are those imprisoned who shouldn't be because they broke laws that should not be laws

Yes, the rulers of the world are not the philosophers, not the wise kings, nor his knights. At the table of law makers isn't place for writers, teachers, dreamers, or other architects of humanity to join.

Whatever building was put in our world, there was a plan first.

But theory (the plan) and practice (the building) never match 100%. There's always this embarrassing difference between what we would like to see and what we actually see. But as a thinker, or a dreamer if you wish, I keep drafts in my pockets and lay them beside reality, trying to see the difference, or faults that slipped in on both sides.

In other words, I don't expect you to agree on the plan if it doesn't match the building, because that's inevitable. To some extent I can agree with your comments on reality. And a little more even when it comes to our disgust about the devaluation of justice and compassion. Nevertheless I like to keep the plans unaltered, because they're not made by me, but by far more wiser people, and thought over way longer than the lifespan of any of today's ruler.